Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. These two appeals challenge the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in O.A.Nos. 252 and 253 of 2009. Application No.252 of 2009 was filed seeking ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the final order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13. 2009, while Application No.253 of 2009 was filed seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from calling for tender and inducting any dealer to run the retail outlet which is being run by the applicant, pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings invoked in pursuance of the dealership agreement dated 31.08.1989. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned single Judge is as follows: The appellant/applicant is the sole proprietor and he was awarded licence to run a retail vending of petrol, diesel, lubricant oils etc. under the name and style of M/s. Lakshmi Service Station under the dealership agreement dated 38. 1989. The applicant/appellant is one of the leading dealers in the locality. On 8. 2008, there was inspection of the service station and it was found that there was no totaliser seal. A report was actually prepared and following the same, the sales and supplies were suspended as per the endorsement in the register dated 8. 2008. The appellant/applicant moved this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.20598 of 2008 to quash the order dated 8. 2008 but this Court in the interim prayer in the writ petition issued a direction to revive the sales and to supply the petroleum products by order dated 9. 2008 subject to re-stamping from the 4th respondent. It was also observed that the respondents are not prevented from taking following up action in accordance with law. Thereafter, notice was served upon the appellant on 28. 2008 to show cause as to why the licence granted to him should not be terminated which brought forth a reply dated 13. 2009. Thereafter, a final order was passed confirming the notice issued. Clause 67 of the Agreement dated 38. 1989 deals with referring the dispute to arbitration. Pending arbitration proceedings, the applicant has sought for the above reliefs. 3. The respondent filed counter to the applications stating that an inspection was conducted and a report was also made on 8. 2008. Tampering of the seal was actually noticed. Thereafter, notice was issued and subsequently, the sales and service were suspended. Pending arbitration proceedings, the applicant has sought for the above reliefs. 3. The respondent filed counter to the applications stating that an inspection was conducted and a report was also made on 8. 2008. Tampering of the seal was actually noticed. Thereafter, notice was issued and subsequently, the sales and service were suspended. The appellant moved this Court by way of Writ petition and in the interim prayer seeking a direction, this court has observed that there is no impediment for the respondents to proceed with further action in accordance with law. Thereafter, show cause notice was served which brought forth a reply. Under such circumstances, in view of the powers vested upon them, the respondents passed the final order. It is also pointed out that tampering of totaliser seal was a major irregularity under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 and the penalty for the said irregularity was termination. Pursuant to the termination proceedings, the outfit has come to the custody of the Corporation. Under such circumstances, both the applications were to be dismissed. 4. The learned single Judge, after hearing the submissions made and also looking into the available materials, took the view that it is not a fit case where the interim orders should be granted and dismissed both the applications. Hence, these appeals. 5. The only contention putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court and before the learned Single Judge is that the seal was found to be broken and it was not actually tampered as pointed out in the report. Even in the earlier time, it was found to be broken and it was made mentioned in the register. Hence, the contention putforth by the Corporation that it was tampered which is a major irregularity which necessitated for termination was actually unfounded. Under such circumstances, interim orders should be granted. 6. Added further learned counsel, it is true the matter is referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator has been appointed and now, the proceedings have got to be taken and till the time, a decision is taken by the Arbitrator, if no interim orders are granted as asked for before the trial Court, much prejudice would be caused to the appellant. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case where interim orders as asked for by the appellant have got to be granted. 7. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case where interim orders as asked for by the appellant have got to be granted. 7. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent who put forth his contentions to sustain the order of the learned single Judge. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made on either side. 8. It is not in controversy that the appellant is a retail vendor of the respondent Corporation. There was actually an inspection made on 8. 2008 and the totaliser seal was actually found to be broken. Following the report, there was an order of suspension made and after service of the suspension order, the appellant moved this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.20598 of 2008 where he urged that the suspension order should be quashed and in the interim prayer in the writ petition, this Court made an order to the effect that there is no impediment for the appellant in carrying on the business but it should be subject to re-stamping from the fourth respondent. The order also pointed out that there was no impediment for the respondents in taking the following up action. Following the same, a show cause notice was issued calling for the reply which brought forth the reply and thereafter, final orders have been passed on 13. 2009. 9. It is an admitted position that as per the agreement entered into between the parties dated 38. 1989, the disputes between the parties have got to be referred to arbitration for taking a proper decision. Now, the matter is referred to arbitration. The contention now put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the seal was actually found to be broken and it was not tampered. The matter was before the Arbitrator and this point has to be raised as an issue which should be answered on appreciation of evidence put forth by the parties. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that pending proceedings before arbitration, injunction orders have got to be granted, cannot be accepted for the simple reason since in the instant case as per the clauses available in the agreement, whenever there is termination order made, all the products in the hands of the appellant would come to the custody of the Corporation automatically. Under such circumstances, it would not be worthwhile to allow the appellant to further proceed with the matter by way of injunction orders. The learned single Judge is perfectly correct in not granting interim injunctions. 10. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge is confirmed. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.