The Order of the Court was as follows :

An interesting point has been raised in this revision, which is against the order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties to the revision had entered into an agreement for dealership of petroleum products. Clause 67 of the agreement provides for resolution of disputes by referring to the sole Arbitrator, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of petroleum products by the respondent. Alleging breach of the terms of agreement, the respondent terminated the agreement, by an order dated 20.2.2001. The respondent filed I.A. No. 8807 of 2001 under Section 8(1) of the Act. This application was ordered and therefore, this revision was filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veerapathiran, stated that the application was not maintainable since it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Further, he also submitted that the termination order was null and void. On 4.5.1999, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The second show cause notice was issued on 20.10.1999 to wh