Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3190 (JHR)

MS SHAKAMBARI MARKETTING THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED

WPC/4825/2018 · 2026-04-07

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:9845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4825 of 2018 ------- Shree Shakambhari Marketting, a Proprietorship Firm through its Proprietor- Pawan Kumar Agrawal, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Sheo Dayal Agrawal, aged about 58 years, resident of Harmu Road, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited; a Government of India Enterprises having its registered office at: 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020, P.O. Churchgate, P.S. Church Gate, District Mumbai, State Maharashtra. 2. Executive Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 8, Soorji Vallabhdas Marg, P.O. & P.S. Town Hall, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001. 3. Director Marketing, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, P.O. & P.S. Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. 4. Sri Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jamshedpur Direct Sales Regional Office, Burmamines-Station Road, Jamshedpur, P.O. Tata Nagar, P.S. Barma Mines, District East Singhbhum. … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aditya Kumar Khandelwal, Advocate Ms. Kanu Priya, Advocate ------ 09/ 07.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same relief the petitioner is availing the remedy before the Commercial Court. 3. Since the petitioner is already availing the remedy before the Commercial Court, no useful purpose will be served to keep this writ petition pending. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of arbitration and, thereafter, availing remedy before the Commercial Court, I am not inclined to pass any order in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is dismissed as the same has become infructuous. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 7th April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:09/04/2026