Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Jalan v. Harish Gupta

Gauhati HC8 May 2025Cont.Cas(C)/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a Division Bench order directing parties to reconstitute a dealership firm. The Court held that the liberty granted to the Corporation to take steps if no settlement was reached did not constitute a binding direction, and thus found no wilful disobedience. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanjay Kumar Jalan Vs Harish Gupta — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010087602024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/237/2024

¶6

SANJAY KUMAR JALAN S/O- LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN, R/O- HIJUGURI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

HARISH GUPTA THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL SALES), TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL- AOD, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, SRIPURIA ROAD, PO AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr. S. Islam, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. N. Baruah, Advocate

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

– B E F O R E –

¶12

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶13

09-05-2025

¶14

(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)

¶15

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that the alleged contemnor has not complied with the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 in WA 85/2022.

¶16

The appellants have filed the above-referred writ appeal being aggrieved with the judgment and final order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3549/2020, whereby the decision of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) in stopping the supply of fuel to the Retail Outlet in question was reversed and the Corporation was directed to take on record the proposal submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ appeal for reconstitution of the dealership strictly in accordance with the Rules by giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other stakeholders with the rider that the consideration would have to be limited only towards the requirements raised in the letter dated 10.07.2020 and the Corporation would not be at liberty to embark upon deciding the legality of the partnership which could only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court reversed the said judgment and final order passed by the learned Single Judge while granting liberty to the appellants as well as the respondents in WA 85/2022 to sort out their differences and to revert to the respondent Corporation for reconstitution of the firm. The Division Bench of this Court

¶17

Page No.# 3/4

¶18

granted six months’ time for the said exercise while granting liberty to the respondent Corporation to take appropriate steps as per the applicable guidelines. The operative portion of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 85/2022 is reproduced hereunder:

¶19

“ 13. In the peculiar facts of the case, we hereby give liberty to all legal heirs of Late M.P. Jalan to sort out their differences and to revert to the respondent Corporation for reconstitution of the firm. If the above process is not completed within a period of 6 (six) months, the respondent Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps as per the applicable Guidelines. Till then, the respondent No.2, namely, Shri Rajesh Jalan, shall be allowed to operate the fuel pump in question under the “Holiday Scheme”. The impugned judgment & order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3549/2020 is reversed.”

¶20

The petitioner is alleging that though no amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties within the period of six months as granted by the Division Bench of this Court, the Indian Oil Corporation has not taken any steps as per the guidelines pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court.

¶21

Affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of the contemnor. In the affidavitin-opposition, the respondent has contended that when the parties failed to arrive at any settlement within the time fixed by this Court, the IOCL authorities wrote letters to the parties to come for reconstitution of the partnership firm. However, in the meantime, one party, who was respondent No.2 in the writ appeal, approached the Civil Court and obtained injunction order. Though the injunction order was later on vacated by this Court in a separate proceeding and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for deciding afresh the injunction application, the said injunction application has not been decided till date.

¶22

Page No.# 4/4

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the sole respondent. This Court simply granted liberty to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to take appropriate steps as per the applicable guidelines if the parties fail to arrive at an amicable settlement and the said liberty cannot be termed as any direction from this Court. Hence, we do not find any merit in this contempt petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶24

Notice discharged.

¶25

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Sanjay Kumar Jalan v. Harish Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjay Kumar Jalan v. Harish Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mokabul Hussain Vs Rahul Kr Gupta, IAS

Smt. Chhunthangi and 16 Ors. Vs Sh. Lalmuansanga Ralte, District Collector, Serchhip District, Mizoram and 6 Ors.

Abdul Hakim Vs Pomi Baruah

Dr. Ganesh Chandra Jagetia Vs K.R.S. Sambasiva Rao and Anr.

Lalnunduatpuia and Anr. Vs Sh K.Laltlawmlova Mcs and 3 Ors.

Paban Hazarika Vs Prasanta Borkakati

Prafulla Saikia Vs Prof. Shambhu Nath Singh and Anr.

Biju Devi and 2 Ors. Vs Narayan Konwar and Anr.

Gautam Rai Vs Union of India

Dinendra Biswas Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Dr. Rajib Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Paran Chandra Deka Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sumit Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Pulendra Nath Pathak Vs the State of Assam and Ors.