2026:HHC:14423 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 814/2024 Reserved on: 16.04.2026 Decided on: 04.05.20P26 M/s Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary …..Petitioner Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rromesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioneor: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge g The present petition has been filed by the ipetitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the Act) for grant of interim directions.

2. The brief facts, for the adjudication of the instant petition, are that the petitioner is a Sole Proprietorship concern having its office-cum workshop, near UCO Bank, Ghumarwin, District, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. It is averred in the

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

petition that the respondents were in need of Service Station for their vehicles at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur H.P. They issued an advertisement in Punjab Kesari and Divya Himachal for opening of Authorized Service Station in Himachal P.radesh. In response to the advertisement, vide Annexure A-1, the petitioner made an offer to the respondents vide letter dated 21.06.1999 to open authorized servoice station of Mahindra and Mahindra at Ghumarwin, Distric t Bilaspur. The said offer was made by the petitioner on 21.06.1999 and pursuant to that, the respondents issued letter of intent (Annexure P-4) to the petitioner on noon-exclusive basis for a period of six months from 01.08.2000, stipulating therein that based on performance and inspection of the premises of the petitioner, appointment wihll be confirmed by execution of an agreement.

3. Finally, an agreement (Annexure P-5) was entered between the parties on 28.06.2002, which was deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1.2.2001 and shall continue to remain in force and also govern all transactions between the parties upto 31.03.2004. To the similar extent, fresh contract (Annexure P- 7) was executed on 10.7.2006 which was deemed to have come into force and shall bind the parties w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2008. Another agreement (Annexure P-10) was entered into between the parties in 2015 and the said agreement was deemed to have come into force and shall bind the parties w.e.f. 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2018. Finally, vide Annexure P-11, an agreement was entered between the parties w.e.f. 1.4.2021 to 31.3.2024. As per terms and conditions of the .agreement (Annexure P-11), the respondent-Company granted Mahindra Authorised Service Centre (MASC) non-exclusive rights during the continuance of the agreemento to act as an MASC. The respondent-company shall have the liberty to grant a right to one or more person, entities and/or, MASC to service the said products of the Company in the said territory or any part thereof and furthoer the Company shall have the right to service the said products direct to the customers in the said territory. In the agreement, the petitioner has been referred to as MASC. Cuhrrency of the agreement, which took place between the parties on 1.4.2021, was from 1.4.2021 to 31.3.2024. As per clause 30 of the agreement, provision of arbitration has been stipulated.

4. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the respondents accepted offer of the petitioner and told him that service team shall visit the Auto store to assess the suitability of the appointment of the petitioner as MASC. After completing codal formalities, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, copy of the letter dated 13.07.2000 along with the DD (Annexure P-3). Thereafter on 01.08.2000 the letter of intent Annexure P-4 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed by the respondents to create additional facilities and make major arrangement for the work.shop