Madras High Court
ARB APPEAL/121/2026 of E.Vasantha Vs G.Amutha on 27 October 2026
Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011385142026}
E.Vasantha
W/o. K.S.Elangovan,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. G.Amutha
W/o. K.Govindaraju,
2. The Division of Retail Sale
Represented by its Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Triveni, Third Floor,
B-351 Sastri Road,
Thillai Nagar,
Trichy.
..Respondent(s)
Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 27.03.2024 in Arb.OP
No. 51 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Loganathan for R1
Mr.R.Sreedhar for R2
Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur dated 27.03.2024 in Arb.O.P.No.51 of 2023 dismissing the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measure of injunction against the first respondent, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interim relief sought before the learned Principal District Judge indicates that the agreement itself is unenforceable and hence, the impugned order of the learned Principal District Judge is not sustainable in law.
3. Admittedly, the partnership agreement executed between the parties contains an arbitration clause for the resolution of any disputes. However, the learned Principal District Judge erroneously relied upon a separate dealership agreement between the respondents to non-suit the appellant under the partnership agreement
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before us.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the learned Principal District Judge is right in non-suiting the appellant under the partnership agreement entered into between the parties.
Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026
6. The application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed seeking to restrain the respondents from carrying on business at any other place other than the scheduled property and to restrain the second respondent from supplying petrol, diesel etc., In our view such a prayer is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant has also fairly submitted that the appellant is also not pressing the said prayer and is concerned only with the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge refusing to grant the relief for the appellant under the partnership agreement.
7. It is the case of the appellant that he advanced a certain amount to the first respondent in order to support the petroleum business carried on in her name. For this purpose, the appellant and first respondent entered into a partnership agreement, which also provides for reference to arbitration in the event of any dispute arising between the parties.
8. The learned Principal District Judge, taking note of the specific clause in the Dealership Agreement prohibiting the dealer from making any changes in the constitution of the partners without the approval of the Company, has come to the conclusion that the partnership agreement entered into between the appellant and the first respondent could not be enforced.
9. We are of the view that, since the dealership agreement is exclusively between the respondents, the order of the learned Principal District Judge is not correct. If there is any violation in the dealership agreement, it is for the
Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026
Company and the dealer to resolve the issue in accordance with the terms of the agreement and to enforce the same.
10. When the first respondent mobilised funds with the assistance of the appellant, they entered into a partnership agreement and also agreed to refer any disputes arising between them to arbitration, merely because the dealership agreement contains certain restrictions, the partnership agreement cannot be invalidated in its entirety. In such view of the matter, the finding of the learned Principal District Judge that the partnership agreement is not enforceable is liable to be interfered with. As far as the injunction sought by the appellant is concerned, such relief cannot be granted at this stage, it is left open to the appellant to invoke the arbitration clause in respect of the said dispute.
11. With the above observation, this appeal is partly allowed and the finding of the learned Principal District Judge that the partnership agreement is not enforceable is set aside. It is open to the appellant to invoke the arbitration clause in respect of the dispute in question. There shall be no order as to costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa
Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. gpa Arb Appeal No. 121 of 2026 27-10-2026