IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.103 OF 2009. ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.103 OF 2009. ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.103 OF 2009. M/s. Agmore Agencies ..Petitioner versus F.D.C.Limited ..Respondent Mr.Vivek Salunkhe for the petitioner Mr.Sanjay Udeshi for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18th March, 2009. DATED : 18th March, 2009. DATED : 18th March, 2009. P.C. 1. Parties had exchanged their affidavit to place their respective contentions and pleadings are completed. The petitioner was appointed as agent of the Receiver by virtue of agreement dated 1.3.2007. The said agreement provided for termination of the agency agreement in terms of Clause 15 and respondents have by their letter dated 8.1.2009 invoked the said clause No.15 and have terminated the agency agreement. It is admitted by the petitioner across the bar through Counsel that whatever security deposit was paid by the petitioner with the respondent for the due performance of agency agreement has been refunded to him. -2- 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the letter of termination dated 8.1.2009 is not in consonance with Clause 15 and no circumstances which enable the respondent to terminate the agreement has occurred and in any case not mentioned in the letter dated 8.1.2009. According to him the letter of termination dated 8.1.2009 is per se illegal and therefore till the dispute is decided by the arbitrator, the petitioner is entitled for an Order so as to see that the respondents are directed to continue the relationship with the petitioner in terms of agreement dated 1.3.2000. I have heard counsels on both the sides. It is clear that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was created based on the agency agreement dated 1.7.2007. May be that before the Arbitrator the petitioner would be able to succeed and get the judgment that the letter of termination dated 8.1.2009 is illegal. However, in my view as of today, the Court cannot compel the respondents to continue to accept the petitioner as their agent as it well known that the relationship between the two parties as agent and principal is absolutely of personal nature and depends upon the wishes of the respective parties. -3- . The argument advanced by the petitioner that based on the agency agreement petitioner had invested substantial amount and on account of letter of termination the petitioner is suffering a set-back and that has got to be taken care of and as such interim Order in terms of the petition is required to be granted. I am not inclined to accept this argument. The petitioner may be facing difficulty on account of the said termination. However, today the Court cannot compel the respondent to accept the petitioner as his agent. Petitioner will have to accept the remedies in accordance with the provisions of law and has every right to agitate the same before the appropriate Court. For the reasons aforestated, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in terms of the petition and the same is required to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER . Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) -4-