Allowed

T.K.Manoj v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Sept 2014WP(C)/7880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a licensed dealer for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., challenged the termination of his dealership agreement by alleging non-compliance with notice requirements. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed communications regarding termination, and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Gemini Service Station.

What did the court decide?

Extension of relief granted to run the petrol-diesel outlet by the petitioner to continue operating within two weeks.

T.K.Manoj Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 7880 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.K.MANOJ, KRIPA, CHIRAKKARA.P.O, THALASSERY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.PREMCHAND SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O.,KOCHI - 36, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶11

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI - 36.

¶12

3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION O..O., KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2014, THE COURT ON 03/09/2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 7880 of 2014 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 10.01.2008.

¶19

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.09.2013 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.09.2013 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPSPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSED NOTICE DATED 16.01.2014.

¶24

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.01.2014 OF PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.03.2014.

¶26

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE TAKING OVER REPORT DATED 17.03.2014 WITH RESPECT TO TAKING OVER GEMINI SERVICE STATION.

¶29

EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DSR MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER, CONTAINING THE ANNUAL SUMMARY STATEMENT AND COUNTER SIGNED BY THE FIELD OFFICER OF IOC.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.7880 of 2014

¶35

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2014

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The matter in controversy is regarding termination of retail outlet dealership agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The reason for the termination is on the ground that the petitioner has not achieved the targeted sales volume. In this matter, a detailed order has been passed on 19.3.2014 by the learned brother Justice P.N.Ravindran. In the order, it is found that the condition precedent for invoking the power under Clause 10 of the agreement has not been made out. Challenging the order dated 19.3.2014, the respondents filed W.A.No.781/2014. The main contention in the writ appeal was that the respondents had not complied with the agreement. The Division Bench disposed the above writ appeal with a liberty to the respondents to approach before the learned single Judge by pointing out the documents relied by the respondents.

¶38

Thereafter, I.A.No.4615/2014 was filed to review the order.

¶39

The learned brother Justice P.N.Ravindran as per the detailed order

¶40

W.P.(C) No.7880 of 2014 2

¶41

dated 2.7.2014 rejected the application. The learned brother Justice P.N.Ravindran after adverting to the factual contentions raised on behalf of the respondents in Ext.P6 again concluded that the termination was not following the notice as contemplated in Clause 10. Therefore, I am of the view, in view of the finding of fact in the order dated 2.7.2014, there is nothing further survives to review the interim order. The variation of finding of fact in the final hearing is possible if only new documents have been placed to take a different decisions. The orders passed by this Court on 19.3.2014 and 2.7.2014 will form part of this judgment.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is quashed and consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the petrol - diesel outlet by name Gemini Service Station, Chirakkara, Thalassery. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is unable to achieve the target in future, it is open to the respondents to invoke Clause 10 in accordance with the agreement.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶45

T.K.Manoj v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Manoj v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chippy Sajanan Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Sasi Vs the State of Kerala

Sali John Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Riju M. Vs the Passport Officer

K.Padmanabhan Nair Vs the District Collector