Sanjay Kumar, J.

This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the Act of 1996), arises out of the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, in C.F.R.No.3249 of 2017 in an unnumbered Arbitration Petition filed by the appellant herein. The said arbitration petition was filed under Section 9(ii)(d) of the Act of 1996, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the respondent herein, from interfering in any way with the business operations of the appellant, either by forcibly effecting her eviction or by discontinuing supply of petroleum products, till the disputes between them were resolved finally through the process of arbitration. Therein, the appellant filed C.F.R.No.3249 of 2017, seeking interim relief on the same lines till disposal of the petition.

2. By the order under appeal, the Court below held that the correct provision of law that was applicable was 9(1)(ii)(d) and not Section 9(ii)(d) of the Act of 1996; that the agreement between the parties stood terminated at the end of the agreement period, which expired on 28.03.2004 and therefore, there was no arbitration clause existing and in operation, whereby the appellant could invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9(1)(ii)(d) of the Act of 1996; that even in terms of the arbitration clause, it was not open to the appellant to nominate a sole Arbitrator thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Principal District Court, Chittoor; and that the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

3. Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the Court below erred in dismissing the main Arbitration O.P. at the stage of considering the petition filed therein for interim relief. He would contend that the Court below was in error in coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration O.P., as the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. He would assert that in terms of the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Sushee Ventures Private Limited Vs. Rahul Agarwal, 2017 (1) ALT 257 (D.B.) the Court below undoubtedly had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He would further state that though the initial agreement between the parties was executed as long back as on 27.10.2003, there was no termination of the relationship by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and therefore, the arbitration clause in the said agreement would continue to exist and operate, notwithstanding the expiry of the period stipulated thereunder.

4. Per contra, Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, would state that this case has a long and chequered history and that the attempt on the part of the appellant is only to defeat the orders passed by the Supreme Court. He would further submit that it is only if an arbitration clause is in existence and available that the question of the Court below examining whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter would arise. He would therefore state that notwithstanding the error, if any, committed by the Court below on that issue, the matter first requires to be examined in the context of the finding of the Court below that no such arbitration clause is available to the appellant as on date. He would place before this Court the judgments rendered by this Court and thereafter, by the Supreme Court which have significance.

5. It appears that a Maintenance and Handling (M & H) Contract in respect of a retail outlet was entered into by IBP Company Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, with the appellant on 27.10.2003. Clause 48 of this agreement categorically stated that the agreement would be for a period of one year, effective from 29.03.2003, subject to renewal by one year at the company’s option at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions. The clause fur