Petitioner sought continuation of distributorship benefits after agreement termination and conversion to commission agency. Court dismissed writ petition noting no right to perpetuity and no mala fides alleged.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not entitled to continuation of agreement benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5.wpl.2238.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 2238 OF 2013
Shri Mahesh V. Parab ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.Siddhartha R. Ronghe, Advocate, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Prashant Chavan a/w. Mr.Madhukar Kalzunkar i/b Navdeep Vora & Associates for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2013.
P.C.
Distributorship Agreement dated 31st July 1988 entered into between Respondent No.4 and himself. It is not necessary to consider the
Respondents’ allegation that the Petitioner’s performance was poor.
1 / 2
Shraddha Talekar P.A.
5.wpl.2238.13.doc
Clause 14 of the agreement entitles Respondent No.4 to terminate the agreement by giving 15 days notice. The Petitioner does not have a right to have the agreement continued in perpetuity against the wishes of Respondent No.4. There are no allegations of malafides against the Petitioner. The grievance of Respondent No.4 is limited to the alleged inadequate performance by the Petitioner regarding the sale of the products of Respondent No.4. It is always open to the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 to enter into a fresh agreement of distributorship.
2 / 2
Shraddha Talekar P.A.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a right to continued benefits under a terminated distributorship agreement converted into a commission agency agreement.
Whether the respondent can terminate the agreement due to inadequate performance without mala fides.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continuation of the agreement against the wishes of the respondent.
Shri Mahesh V. Parab
The State of Maharashtra
S.J. VAZIFDAR
K. R. SHRIRAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
