their performance and also contending that the respondent had encroached an unauthorised service station and sales operation to operate close to the claimants outlet which had dented the sales and service. Therefore, the claimant had requested the respondent to renew the Dealership Agreement and increased their market share in Thrissur and Calicut. On 11.08.2015, the Dealership Agreement was terminated. By their letter dated 09.09.2015, the claimant had invoked the arbitration agreement requesting the respondent to appoint a sole Arbitator and also requested them to permit the claimant to continue to function until all the issues, claims and disputes relating to the dealership agreement and its unilateral termination was resolved. After receiving the letter requesting appointment of the sole Arbitator, the respondent Company vide letter dated 23.09.2015 had informed the claimant that Mr.S.Sambandham, District Judge, (Retd), was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute relating to the Dealership Agreement between them for non-exclusive agreement at Thrissur. Thereafter, by letter dated 19.10.2015, the petitioner had addressed the respondent with a request to renew the dealership at Calicut and Kannur for next three years. They had also requested the respondent to withdraw the 'Open Territory Status' at Kannur and not appoint an additional dealer in Kannur for next three years as also for Calicut District. This letter was issued without prejudice to the rights and claims in the event, of the respondent succeeding in the Arbitration proceedings initiated by the respondent. A letter dated 21.12.2015 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner pointing out that the dealership at Calicut and Kannur was falling short and directing them to improve their performance.
