Parallel remedies in dealership disputes barred writ relief after arbitration had already concluded against the appellants.

Writ petitions challenging termination of a dealership were not maintainable where the same dispute had already been referred to arbitration under the dealership agreement and the arbitral process had concluded against the appellants. The Court treated the pursuit of writ and arbitration remedies over the same controversy as impermissible parallel proceedings, and upheld dismissal of the writ petitions. The earlier dismissal was therefore justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging termination of the dealership were maintainable when the appellants had also invoked arbitration in respect of the same dispute.

Analysis: The matter had already been taken to arbitration under the dealership agreement, and the arbitral process had concluded against the appellants. In these circumstances, the writ petitions could not be entertained because the appellants were pursuing two parallel remedies in respect of the same controversy at the same time. The earlier dismissal of the writ petitions was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were rightly dismissed.

---