Disposed

Lalitha Thomas v. Indian Oil Corporation

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023WP(C)/22352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a dispute regarding the operation of an Indian Oil dealership following the death of a partner and subsequent conflicts among legal heirs. The court directed the company to place the outlet under a 'Holiday Scheme' to allow parties time to resolve the dispute. The appeals and the associated petition were disposed of based on these guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Indian Oil Corporation directed to operate the dealership under 'Holiday Scheme' pending resolution of disputes among heirs.

Lalitha Thomas Vs Indian Oil Corporation — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶7

WA NO. 601 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2023 IN WP(C) NO.2112/2023

¶9

APPELLANT:

¶10

K.T.SKARIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE SKARIAH THOMAS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ERAYIL KADAVU, MUTTAMABALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002.

¶11

BY ADVS. ISAAC THOMAS ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS AIBEL MATHEW SIBY

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 K.T.SCARIAH AND SON, (DEALER CODE 125119), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER- LALITHA THOMAS, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE SKARIA THOMAS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ERAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686001.

¶14

2 LALITHA THOMAS, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE SKARIA THOMAS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ERAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686001.

¶15

3 NIRMALA THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.SAJI THOMAS, GV ESTATE, THORAPPALLI P.O., GUDALOOR, TAMIL NADU, PIN – 643211.

¶16

4 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION(KERALA STATE OFFICE), PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682036.

¶17

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 2

¶18

5 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (KERALA STATE OFFICE), PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682036.

¶19

6 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (KERALA STATE OFFICE), PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682036.

¶20

BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).22352/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 3

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶29

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶30

WP(C) NO. 22352 OF 2023

¶31

PETITIONERS:

¶32

1 LALITHA THOMAS, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE SKARIA THOMAS, KALATHIL HOUSE, ERAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM-686001, PIN – 686001.

¶33

2 NIRMALA THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.SAJI THOMAS, GV ESTATE, THORAPPALLI P.O., GUDALOOR, TAMILNADU, PIN 643211.

¶34

3 ANITHA JOSSY, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.JOSSY PHILIP, G1- JEWEL HOMES, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-686004.

¶35

4 LATHA ZACHARIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.ZACHARIA STEPHEN, MUNDUKOTTACKAL HOUSE, MAKKAPUZHA, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689676.

¶36

5 M/S.K T SKARIA & SON, (DEALER CODE 125119), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-LALITHA THOMAS, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE SKARIA THOMAS KALATHIL HOUSE, ERAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶37

BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX AMAL AMIR ALI MANU SANKAR P.

¶38

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 4

¶39

RESPONDENTS:

¶40

1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (KERALA STATE OFFICE) PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682036.

¶41

2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (KERALA STATE OFFICE) PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682036.

¶42

3 DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES (HEAD), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE), GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK, EANCHAKKAL BYPASS ROAD, VALLALLADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 008.

¶43

4 K.T.SKARIAH, KALATHIL HOUSE, ERAYILKADAVU P.O., MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM – 686001.

¶44

BY ADVS. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M ISAAC THOMAS ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS(K/001270/2018) SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA(K/001677/2018) JOHN VITHAYATHIL(K/001877/2021) AIBEL MATHEW SIBY(K/1376/2020) K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)

¶45

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH WA.601/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 5

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

[WA Nos.601/2023, 22352/2023]

¶50

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶51

The dispute in these matters arose consequent upon the death of Skariah Thomas. Skariah Thomas and his wife were the partners of a firm and the firm was the dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation. Consequent upon the death of Skariah Thomas, a dispute arose among legal heirs. Now it is admitted at the Bar that the Petroleum Outlet is not operational. The parties could not arrive at a settlement. The policy guidelines for the reconstitution of retail outlet/SKO-LDO Dealerships is produced as Ext.P5 in W.P. (C) No.22352/2023. In the said policy guidelines, Clauses 9 and 10 read thus:

¶52

“9. Dispute in case of Induction of nominee/legal heir/family member amongst partners: Partner(s) can transfer his/her shareholding in the dealership to Legal heir(s)/family member(s)/outsider(s), subject to adherence to applicable statutory provisions and the incoming partner meeting the eligibility criteria. However, if there is any dispute with regard to the induction amongst the surviving/existing partners, then in such cases the dispute may be resolved expeditiously by the dealership. In such cases, OMC would send a notice to all partners calling them for personal hearing to resolve the dispute for operation/ reconstitution of dealership and take an undertaking from the dealership confirming to resolve the dispute

¶53

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 6

¶54

within 6 months. In case any partner(s) does not attend, personal hearing may be given to the attending partners. However, communication on action proposed to be taken would be sent to all the partners.

¶55

During the dispute period, the dealership may be operated by the partner(s)/legal heir(s)/family member(s) as per the share out of existing partners prior to the induction of the new partners. OMC may allow operation of such dealership for a period of 6 months or as may be decided on case to case basis. If the dispute remains unresolved, then the dealership may be placed under "Holiday Scheme", giving the parties a reasonable time to settle their dispute and revert back for the dealership.

¶56

Temporary Arrangement for operation of dealership in case of death of proprietor /partner(s): In cases of death of proprietor/partner(s), temporary arrangement is to be made through legal heirs of the proprietor/surviving partner(s) to continue the dealership till formal reconstitution. OMC may allow operation of such dealership through Legal heirs of the proprietor/surviving partners for a period of 6 months after demise of dealer/partner(s) as may be decided on case to case basis. In case of non-receipt of reconstitution proposal, after expiry of 6 months, the Surviving partners should be given an option of "Holiday Scheme" to sort out their issues within reasonable time and revert back for dealership.”

¶57

In the light of the above clauses, it is appropriate that the Indian Oil Corporation shall make the holiday arrangement, enabling the parties to resolve the disputes as per the 'Holiday Scheme'. Once the dispute is

¶58

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 7

¶59

resolved either through settlement or through adjudication, they can approach the Indian Oil Corporation before the expiry of the 'Holiday Scheme'.

¶60

The writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of as above.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

¶67

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 8

¶68

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22352/2023

¶69

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶70

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01-04-1992 ENTERED BETWEEN MR. SKARIAH THOMAS AND 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-122021 ISSUED BY SBI TO 5TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-012023 IN WPC 2112 OF 2023. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. TDO/R/KTM-8 DATED 15-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ENCLOSURE). EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 'POLICY GUIDELINES FOR RECONSTITUTION OF RETAIL OUTLET / SKO-LDO DEALERSHIPS'. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (UNDATED) ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17-042023 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-022022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BEARING NO. 4202-RE/LII/1-798995019316 DATED 04-05-2023 ISSUED FROM IOC. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COVERING NOTE (UNDATED) SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶71

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 9

¶72

EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF EMAIL DATED 20-05-2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF EMAIL DATED 24-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO IOC OFFICIALS.
EXHIBIT P11(A)	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 15-03-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO IOC OFFICIALS.
EXHIBIT P11(B)	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 08-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO IOC OFFICIALS.
EXHIBIT P11(C)	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO SALES OFFICER, IOC.
EXHIBIT P11(D)	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 18-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO IOC OFFICIALS.
EXHIBIT P11(E)	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 01-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO SALES OFFICER, IOC.
EXHIBIT P11(F)	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 04-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO IOC OFFICIALS.
EXHIBIT P11(G)	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 18-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO IOC OFFICIALS.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING REF. NO. TDO:R:KTM-8 DATED 06-06-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS 1 AND 5.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13-06-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH

¶73

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 10

¶74

CONCURRENCE OF PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶75

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06-06-2023 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶76

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶77

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 06.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT.

¶78

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 11

¶79

APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.601/2023

¶80

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶81

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P.(C) NO.3433 OF 2022.

¶82

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY SBI IN W.P.(C) NO.3433 OF 2022.

¶83

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN W.P.(C) NO.3433 OF 2022.

¶84

ANNEXURED TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-10-2021 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPODENT BY THE APPELLANT.

¶85

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01-12-2021 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPODENT BY THE APPELLANT.

¶86

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶87

ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. TDO/R/KTM-8 DATED 15-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ENCLOSURE).

¶88

ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. TDO:R:KTM-8 DATED 04-04-2023 ISSUED FROM THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶89

ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (UNDATED) ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 17-04-2023 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶90

ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-02-2022 ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶91

ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BEARING

¶92

W.A.No.601/2023 & W.P.(C) No.22352/2023 12

¶93

NO. 4202-RE/LII/1-798995019316 DATED 0405-2023 ISSUED FROM IOC.

¶94

ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF COVERING NOTE (UNDATED) SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD (IOC).

¶95

ANNEXURE R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF EMAIL DATED 20-05-2023 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶96

ANNEXURE R1(H) TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF EMAIL DATED 2405-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO IOC OFFICIALS.

¶97

ANNEXURE R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-022023 IN OPC NO. 226 OF 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Lalitha Thomas v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha Thomas v. Indian Oil Corporation

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

Shibi Immanuel Vs the Union of India

Union of India Vs K.S.Sajeev

Sunil Kumar. K, Vs State of Kerala

K.T. Skariah Vs K.T.Scariah and Son

Union of India, Vs Harisankar R.

Chungathara Grama Panchayat Vs Alavi E