https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157018 Existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, but Article 226 relief remains discretionary and is ordinarily declined where the dispute is contractual, disputed facts require adjudication, and the parties have chosen arbitration. On the facts, the dealership agreement had ended on the death of a partner, no novation was proved, and the later arrangement was only ad hoc. The claim for restoration of the dealership or possession therefore could not be sustained, and interference with the refusal to entertain the writ petition was unwarranted. en-us Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157018 Existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, but Article 226 relief remains discretionary and is ordinarily declined where the dispute is contractual, disputed facts require adjudication, and the parties have chosen arbitration. On the facts, the dealership agreement had ended on the death of a partner, no novation was proved, and the later arrangement was only ad hoc. The claim for restoration of the dealership or possession therefore could not be sustained, and interference with the refusal to entertain the writ petition was unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157018