M/S CAPTAIN GUMAN SINGH & SONS v. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD

1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he wishes to pursue the remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India in respect ofthe actions taken by the respondent. However, there is a finding given by the Arbitral Tribunal to the effect that the termination ofthe SKO Dealership by virtue ofthe letter dated 28.05.2012 was valid would come to his way. He further submitted that in the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was disposed ofby the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2016, the learned Single Judge has declined to enter into the controversy as to whether the finding ofthe Arbitral Tribunal was right or wrong in vie^fthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of lOCL vs. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 533. Since the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal, ithas been requested that the finding ofthe Arbitral Tribunal which has not been examined by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order/judgment should not come in his way ifhe pursues his remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2016:DHC:8440-DB

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also.

3. We feel that the learned counsel for the appellant should be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to pursue his remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if available in law. However, since the learned Single Judge did not address the factual issue with regard to the termination, the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal shall not come in the way of the appellant in case he pursues the said remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in case, that is available to him in law. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

4. The appellant shall not file the proposed writ petition later than four weeks BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 22,2016 rb