# Indane Gas Sewa, Agarwal Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 944
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13636 of 2025
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indane-gas-sewa-agarwal-market-district-gautam-budh-nagar-v-indian-oil-53546
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri Anand Tiwari

(A)
Arbitration
&
Conciliation
Law
-
Maintainability of a writ petition in the
presence
of
an
arbitration
clause
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 7, 9, 17 & 23 - writ petition is not
maintainable
where
an
adequate
and
efficacious alternative remedy exists, as
arbitration is an important Alternative
Disputes Redressal process - court, in its
writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain a matter
when the parties have a valid arbitration
clause, as the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 is a self-contained code that
provides
sufficient
remedies,
including
interim protection. (Para -12,15,16)
Petitioner's
LPG
distributorship
dispute
-
challenged two orders passed by the respondentIndian Oil Corporation - respondent contended
that the writ petition was not maintainable due to
the existence of a binding arbitration clause in the
agreement between the parties. (Para -1 to 5 )

HELD: Writ petition not maintainable in view of
the arbitration clause as provided under Clause
37(a) of the agreement and the availability of
efficacious remedies under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving it open to the
petitioner to approach the arbitrator under
Section 23. No observation in the judgment
should be construed as adjudication on merits
and that if the petitioner approached the
arbitrator, the matter should be decided
expeditiously
without
unnecessary
adjournments. (Para - 17 to 19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
If needed for forensic or scientific analysis,
such as verification of signatures, stamps,
or photo ID cards, the original record may
be handed over to the Investigating Officer
after keeping the certified copy of the
same.

19. In light of the foregoing, the
petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 944
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 13636 of 2025

Surajpur
Indane
Gas
Sewa,
Agarwal
Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.) &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Sri Chandrika Patel,
Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anand Tiwari

(A)
Arbitration
&
Conciliation
Law
-
Maintainability of a writ petition in the
presence
of
an
arbitration
clause
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 7, 9, 17 & 23 - writ petition is not
maintainable
where
an
adequate
and
efficacious alternative remedy exists, as
arbitration is an important Alternative
Disputes Redressal process - court, in its
writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain a matter
when the parties have a valid arbitration
clause, as the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 is a self-contained code that
provides
sufficient
remedies,
including
interim protection. (Para -12,15,16)
Petitioner's
LPG
distributorship
dispute
-
challenged two orders passed by the respondentIndian Oil Corporation - respondent contended
that the writ petition was not maintainable due to
the existence of a binding arbitration clause in the
agreement between the parties. (Para -1 to 5 )

HELD: Writ petition not maintainable in view of
the arbitration clause as provided under Clause
37(a) of the agreement and the availability of
efficacious remedies under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving it open to the
petitioner to approach the arbitrator under
Section 23. No observation in the judgment
should be construed as adjudication on merits
and that if the petitioner approached the
arbitrator, the matter should be decided
expeditiously
without
unnecessary
adjournments. (Para - 17 to 19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjana M. WIG (Ms) Vs H.P. Corpn. Ltd,
(2005) 8 SCC 242

2.
C.O.R.E. Vs ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV),
(2020) 14 SCC 712

3. St. of J & K & anr. Vs Dev Dutt Pandit, (1999)
7 SCC

4. U.O.I. Vs Varindera Constructions Ltd. & ors.,
(2018) 7 SCC 794

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Chandrika
Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri
Anand
Tiwari,
learned
counsel
appearing for respondents.

2. Order dated 07.02.2024 passed by
respondent no. 3/Divisional LPG Sales
Head, Noida Indane Divisional Office A-1,
Udyog Marg, Sector-1 Noida, District
Gautam Budh Nagar as well as order dated
17.02.2025 passed in appeal by respondent
5 All. Surajpur Indane Gas Sewa, Agarwal Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar Vs. Indian Oil
 Corporation Limited (M.D.) & Ors.
945
no. 2/Chief General Manager (LPG) Uttar
Pradesh Sales Office-II A-1, Udyog Marg,
Sector-1 Noida, District Gautam Budh
Nagar are under challenge.

3. Apart from various other arguments
one of argument has been made by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the order
passed by respondent no. 2 is absolutely
non speaking order and is liable to set
aside.

4. On the other hand it is argued by
counsel for the respondent corporation that
the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable especially in
view of the fact that the petitioner has an
statutory alternative remedy to approach
the arbitrator as per clause 37(a) of the
agreement entered between the parties on
28th November, 2014, copy of which is
appended as Annexure No. 4 to the writ
petition. Operative portion of the aforesaid
agreement i.e. Clause 37 (a) reads as
follows:-

"37. (a) All questions, disputes
and differences arising under or in relation
to this Agreement shall be referred to the
sole arbitration of the Director (Marketing)
of the Corporation. If such Director
(Marketing) is unable or unwilling to act as
the sole arbitrator, the matter shall be
referred to the sole arbitration or some
other officer of the Corporation by such
Director (Marketing) in his place, who is
willing to act as such sole arbitrator. It is
known to the parties herein that the
Arbitrator appointed hereunder is an
employee of the Corporation and may be
Shareholder of the Corporation. The
arbitrator to whom the matter is originally
referred, whether the Director (Marketing)
or Officer, as the case may be, on his being
transferred or vacating his office or being
unable to act, for any reason, the Director
(Marketing) shall designate any other
person to act as arbitrator in accordance
with the terms of the agreement and such
person shall be entitled to proceed with the
reference from the stage at which it was left
by his predecessor. It is also the term of his
Agreement that no person other than the
Director also the term of his Agreement
that no person other than the Director
(Marketing) or the person designated by
the Director (Marketing) as aforesaid shall
act as arbitrator. They award of the
Arbitrator so appointed shall be final,
conclusive and binding on all the parties to
the Agreement and provisions of the
Arbitration & Conciliation act, 1996 or any
statutory modification or re-enactment
thereof and the Rules made thereunder and
for the time being in force shall apply to the
arbitration proceedings under this clause.

(b) The parties hereby agree that
the courts in the city of Noida alone shall
have
jurisdiction
to
entertain
any
application or any award/s made by the
Sole Arbitrator or other proceedings in
respect of anything arising under this
Agreement."

5. On being confronted with the said
position Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner could not dispute
the existence of alternative efficacious
remedy by means of arbitration.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

7. The Parliament in exercise of
powers as conferred therein enacted an Act
by the name in the nomenclature of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (In
short Act of 1996) in order to consolidate
and amend the law relating to domestic
arbitration,
international
commercial
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arbitration and enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards as also to define the law
relating to conciliation and for the matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

8. For the kind perusal of this Court
Section 7, 9 and 17 of the Act of 1996 are
being quoted below-

7. Arbitration agreement.--(1) In
this Part, "arbitration agreement" means
an agreement by the parties to submit to
arbitration all or certain disputes which
have arisen or which may arise between
them in respect of a defined legal
relationship, whether contractual or not.

(2) An arbitration agreement may
be in the form of an arbitration clause in a
contract or in the form of a separate
agreement.

(3) An arbitration agreement
shall be in writing.

(4) An arbitration agreement is in
writing if it is contained in--

(a) a document signed by the
parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex,
telegrams
or
other
means
of
telecommunication
1
[including
communication through electronic means]
which provide a record of the agreement;
or

(c) an exchange of statements of
claim and defence in which the existence of
the agreement is alleged by one party and
not denied by the other.

(5) The reference in a contract to
a document containing an arbitration
clause constitutes an arbitration agreement
if the contract is in writing and the
reference is such as to make that
arbitration clause part of the contract.

9. Interim measures, etc., by
Court.--3 [(1)] A party may, before or
during arbitral proceedings or at any time
after the making of the arbitral award but
before it is enforced in accordance with
section 36, apply to a court--

(i) for the appointment of a
guardian for a minor or person of unsound
mind
for
the
purposes
of
arbitral
proceedings; or
(ii) for an interim measure of protection in
respect of any of the following matters,
namely:--

(a) the preservation, interim
custody or sale of any goods which are the
subject-matter
of
the
arbitration
agreement;

(b) securing the amount in
dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or
inspection of any property or thing which is
the subject-matter of the dispute in
arbitration, or as to which any question
may arise therein and authorising for any
of the aforesaid purposes any person to
enter upon any land or building in the
possession of any party, or authorising any
samples to be taken or any observation to
be made, or experiment to be tried, which
may be necessary or expedient for the
purpose of obtaining full information or
evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the
appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of
protection as may appear to the Court to be
just and convenient, and the Court shall
have the same power for making orders as
it has for the purpose of, and in relation to,
any proceedings before it.

(2)
Where,
before
the
commencement of the arbitral proceedings,
a Court passes an order for any interim
measure of protection under sub-section
(1), the arbitral proceedings shall be
commenced within a period of ninety days
from the date of such order or within such
further time as the Court may determine.
5 All. Surajpur Indane Gas Sewa, Agarwal Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar Vs. Indian Oil
 Corporation Limited (M.D.) & Ors.
947

(3) Once the arbitral tribunal has
been constituted, the Court shall not
entertain an application under sub-section
(1),
unless
the
Court
finds
that
circumstances exist which may not render
the remedy provided under section 17
efficacious.]

17. Interim measures ordered by
arbitral tribunal.--(1) A party may, during
the arbitral proceedings or at any time
after the making of the arbitral award but
before it is enforced in accordance with
section 36, apply to the arbitral tribunal--

(i) for the appointment of a
guardian for a minor or person of unsound
mind
for
the
purposes
of
arbitral
proceedings; or

(ii) for an interim measure of
protection in respect of any of the following
matters, namely:--

(a) the preservation, interim
custody or sale of any goods which are the
subject-matter
of
the
arbitration
agreement;

(b) securing the amount in
dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or
inspection of any property or thing which is
the subject-matter of the dispute in
arbitration, or as to which any question
may arise therein and authorising for any
of the aforesaid purposes any person to
enter upon any land or building in the
possession of any party, or authorising any
samples to be taken, or any observation to
be made, or experiment to be tried, which
may be necessary or expedient for the
purpose of obtaining full information or
evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the
appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of
protection as may appear to the arbitral
tribunal to be just and convenient, and the
arbitral tribunal shall have the same power
for making orders, as the court has for the
purpose of, and in relation to, any
proceedings before it.

(2) Subject to any orders passed
in an appeal under section 37 any order
issued by the arbitral tribunal under this
section shall be deemed to be an order of
the Court for all purposes and shall be
enforceable under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same
manner as if it were an order of the
Court.]

9. The same view was taken by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjana
M. WIG (Ms) Vs. Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases
242, in the case of Central Organization
for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI-SPICSMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture
Company (2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases
712 as well as in the case of State of J & K
and another Vs. Dev Dutt Pandit (1999) 7
SCC page 339.

10. The Hon. Supreme Court in the
case of State of J & K and another Vs. Dev
Dutt Pandit (1999) 7 SCC page 339 in para
23 has observed as under:- :-

"23. Arbitration is considered to
be an important Alternative Disputes
Redressal
process
which
is
to
be
encouraged because of high pendency of
cases in the courts and cost of litigation.
Arbitration has to be looked up to with all
earnest so that litigant public has faith in
the speedy process of resolving their
disputes by this process. "

11. Following the said judgments the
Hon. Apex Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. Varindera Constructions Ltd.
and others (2018) 7 SCC 794 in para 12
has observed as under:-
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The primary object of the
arbitration is to reach a final disposition in
a
speedy,
effective,
inexpensive
and
expeditious manner. In order to regulate
the law regarding arbitration, legislature
came up with legislation which is known as
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In
order to make arbitration process more
effective, legislature restricted the role of
courts in case where matter is subject to
the arbitration. Section 5 of the Act
specifically restricted the interference of
the courts to some extent. In other words, it
is only in exceptional circumstances, as
provided by this Act, the court is entitled to
intervene in the dispute which is subject
matter of arbitration. Such intervention
may be before, at or after the arbitration
proceeding, as the case may be. In short,
court shall not intervene with the subject
matter of arbitration unless injustice is
caused to either of the parties."

12. Hon. Supreme Court in the above
noted judgments have consistently held that
arbitration is an important alternative
dispute redressal process which needs to be
encouraged.

13. Here in the present case, learned
counsel for the petitioner have not disputed
the fact that their exists an arbitration
clause and further they are signatories to
the agreement which contains arbitration
clause and the issue in question itself is
also arbitrable and within the scope of
arbitration clause which can be entertained
and adjudicated by the arbitrator.

14. Applying the aforesaid judgements
in the facts of the present case, the Court
finds that the dispute so raised by the
parties
centers
around
factual
issues
wherein complex questions of facts are
involved whose determination requires oral
evidence. This Court in the present
proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot make any
enquiry into disputed questions of fact
while taking evidence.

15. Even otherwise once there exist
arbitration clause in the agreement dated
28.11.2014 so executed between the
respondents one hand and the petitioner on
the other hand and the petitioner being
signatories of the same and are further not
disputing it and also admitting that the
dispute itself is clearly arbitrable then while
applying the principles of law as culled out
as Hon. Apex Court, this Court finds its
inability to entertain the present writ
petition as the petitioner has adequate
efficacious
remedy
of
arbitration
as
provided in Clause 37(a) of the agreement
dated 28.11.2014.

16.
Nonetheless
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is self contained
code wherein not only necessary safeguards
have been provided but also jurisdiction
has been vested with the competent court
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section
17 of the same so as to warrant interim
protection in suitable cases which are filed
or
pending
before
it.
Thus,
the
apprehension of the petitioner that this
Court in the present proceedings can only
be grant interim protection is out of context
as specific remedy as discussed above is
available
to
the
petitioners
under
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

17. Resultantly, the present writ
petition is dismissed as not maintainable on
the ground of alternative efficacious
remedy as provided under Clause 37(a) of
the agreement dated 28.11.2014 leaving it
open to the petitioner to seek remedy as
5 All. Shani Dev & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
949
available under Section 23 of the Act of
1996.

18. Needless to say that any of the
observations made in the present judgment
may not be construed to the expression that
this Court has adjudicated the matter on
merits.

19. It is made clear that in case the
petitioner will file an application before the
arbitrator, the same should be decided
expeditiously
and
without
granting
unnecessary adjournment.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 949
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ C No. 22491 of 2024
With
Other Connected Cases

Shani Dev & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Ranjeet Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Vishal Mishra, C.S.C.

(A) Family Law - Marriage Registration -
Fraudulent
Certificates
-
The
Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Child Marriage
Restraint Act, 1929 - Uttar Pradesh
Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 - Hindu
Marriage Registration Rules ,1973 - Largescale misuse of Arya Samaj marriage
certificates for filing couple-protection
writs - Police verification revealing forged
Aadhar,
PAN,
educational
certificates,
fabricated
witnesses,
and
underage
marriages
-
Pattern
of
registering
marriages in Ghaziabad/Gautam Buddha
Nagar
without
residence
nexus
-
Involvement/Negligence of local police
and Registrar offices - Court orders
institutional reforms, amendment to 2017
Rules, and interim guidelines for marriage
registration
-
Directions
for
interdepartmental
verification
mechanism.
(Para 5, 7 to 35)

Petitioners, claiming to have married against
family wishes - sought police protection -
State disputed genuineness of Arya Samaj
marriage certificate - verification revealed
systemic misuse of forged certificates in
similar petitions - involving underage parties
and non-existent societies - prompting Court
to issue state-wide remedial directions. (Para
3 to 7, 12 to14)

HELD: - Article 21 guarantees right to choose
life partner upon attaining majority, but such
right cannot be invoked through forged or
fabricated documents to circumvent statutory
provisions. State bound to ensure statutory
compliance, safeguard sanctity of marriage, and
prevent misuse of protection writs, directed
amendment of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules,
2017 within six months and issued binding
interim guidelines for marriage registration.
Petitions disposed with liberty to seek relief from
concerned SSP after verification. (Para 13, 30 to
38)

Petitions disposed of. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, Shri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents, and perused the
record.

2. Since the issues involved in the
present writ petition are similar to those
raised in 124 connected petitions, all the
petitions are being heard and decided
together by a common order.