Writ petition withdrawn where agreement contained an arbitration clause, with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, claimed outstanding hire charges from the respondents in respect of a Mahindra XUV-300 bearing Registration No. CG-31-A-7893, including amounts allegedly payable for January–March 2025 and for the period from 5 April 2025 to 21 June 2025.

It sought a writ of mandamus for release of the alleged dues, interest, consideration of its representation, verification and settlement of its bills by an officer other than Respondent No. 6, and costs. The petitioner also filed an application for interim relief.

During hearing, it was submitted that Clause 5 of the agreement contained an arbitration clause and that the dispute arising from the agreement was amenable to arbitration. The petitioner therefore sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail the remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether the writ petition seeking payment and settlement of contractual hire charges should be entertained when the agreement contains an arbitration clause covering disputes arising from the agreement?

Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition and pursue remedies, including interim relief, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

The Court applied the principle that disputes arising out of a contractual agreement containing an arbitration clause should ordinarily be pursued through the agreed arbitral mechanism rather than by invoking writ jurisdiction for adjudication of contractual claims.

The Court relied upon Clause 5 of the agreement, which provided for arbitration of disputes arising from the agreement, and permitted the petitioner to pursue remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including appropriate interim relief under that statute.

The petitioner’s claims concerned alleged unpaid hire charges, computation of contractual dues, interest, and verification of bills—matters arising directly from the agreement.

Since Clause 5 stipulated arbitration for disputes arising from the agreement, the Court treated arbitration as the appropriate remedial forum rather than adjudicating the contractual monetary claims in writ proceedings.

At the petitioner’s request, the Court therefore allowed withdrawal of the writ petition while preserving the petitioner’s liberty to invoke the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and to seek interim relief under that Act.

The petitioner was granted liberty, if so advised, to pursue the available remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and to seek interim relief under that Act.

No adjudication was made on the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed hire charges, interest, or other reliefs.