Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool [Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1], in
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [Harbanslal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107] , this
Court noted that: (Harbanslal Sahnia case [Harbanslal Sahnia
v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107] , SCC p. 110,
para 7)
"7.So far as the view taken by the High Court that the
remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was
available to the appellants and therefore the writ
petition filed by the appellants was liable to be
dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the
rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an
alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of
availability of the alternative remedy, the High
Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at
least three contingencies: (i) where the writ
petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of
principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the
orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
(See Whirlpool Corpn.v. Registrar of Trade Marks
[Whirlpool Corpn.v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8
SCC 1].) The present case attracts applicability of the
first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the
appellants' dealership, which is their bread and butter,
came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-
existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the
appellants should have been allowed relief by the High
Court itself instead of driving them to the need of
initiating arbitration proceedings."