Disposed

R.Arun v. the Territory Manager (Retail)

Madras HC19 Jul 2024WP/19760/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to continue as interim dealer of a BPCL petrol outlet pending a legal heirship appeal. The Court held the prayer too wide but protected his interim dealership while he made representations to BPCL, which was to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Interim dealership not to be disturbed till decision on representation or three months; petitioner to make representation to R1 within two weeks.

R.Arun Vs the Territory Manager (Retail) — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2775

¶2

W.P.No.19760 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

Dated: 19.07.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.19760 of 2024 & WMP.No.21641 of 2024

R.Arun

... Petitioner

1.The Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Trichy Retail Territory, 1^st Floor, Raj Towers, Near Kalaignar Arivalayam, Karur Bye Pass Road, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002.

¶12

2.M.Muthazhagi

¶13

3.M.Cibi Mathialagan

¶14

4.M.Dhivyaa

¶15

5.Mrs.Chandra

¶16

6.M.Paary

¶17

.... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to act as the Interim Dealer of the Petrol Pump dealership business under the name M/s Aruna Enterprises until the pending civil dispute

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Pg.No.1/6

¶21

W.P.No.19760 of 2024

¶22

in A.S.No.89 of 2019 between the 2^nd and 6^th respondents regarding the legal heirship of Mr.(Late) S.Mathialagan is finally decided by this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.V.B.R.Menon For Respondents : Mr.Rajkumar Jhabakh (R1) No appearance (R2 to R6)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner had been a partner in a firm by name Aruna Enterprises with one S.Mathialagan. The firm had been operating a Petroleum Retail Outlet as a dealer of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)/R1 at TrichyChennai Main Road, Padalur, Perambalur District, Tamil Nadu – 621 109 (in short 'bunk'/'bunk in question'). The said Mathialagan passed away on 09.10.2023.

¶26

Litigation has emanated thereafter inter se R2 to R6, which is stated to be pending presently before this Court in A.S.No.89 of 2019. The petitioner submits that he has invoked the arbitration clause in relation to settlement of various issues arising from the partnership, with the legal heirs of the deceased partner. That is on the one hand.

¶27

As regards the dealership itself, the petitioner draws attention of this

¶28

Court to Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence Memorandum of Agreement dated 02.12.2022 (in short 'DPSL Agreement'), entered into between the

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Pg.No.2/6

¶31

W.P.No.19760 of 2024

¶32

erstwhile firm and R1, where clause 13(b) provides determination of the

¶33

agreement on the death/retirement/permanent incapacity of any partner of the

¶34

licensee firm. The said clause reads as under:

¶35

13.(b) On the death or retirement or permanent incapacity of any partner of the Licensees (if a firm) the Company may at its option at once determine this Agreement and if the option shall not be exercised the agreement shall continue as between the Company and the surviving or continuing partners of the Licensees. The legal representatives of the deceased partners or the retiring partner shall be liable for all obligations of the Licensees incurred upto the date of death or retirement and shall not be entitled to claim from the Company any portion of the security deposit. The death of a partner shall be notified by the Licensees to the Company in writing within 24 hours of such death.

¶36

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, where the licensee being an individual, whether trading in his individual name or under a firm name, dies, this agreement shall stand terminated forthwith on such death of the Licensee.'

¶37

While the petitioner states that the option of determination has not been

¶38

exercised by R1, learned counsel for R1 would draw attention to its letter dated 21.10.2023, wherein they state categorically that upon the demise of S.Mathialagan, the DPSL agreement dated 30.01.2020 has 'come to an end' . With this, the determination of the dealership has, in fact, been effected by R1.

¶39

Be that as it may, they have appointed the petitioner as an interim dealer for three months from 21.10.2023 till 20.01.2024 and have been extending the dealership thereafter on representations made by the petitioner. In

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.3/6

¶41

W.P.No.19760 of 2024

¶42

fact, R1 is piqued by the fact that the petitioner has thought it necessary to approach this Court for the relief though it has itself been extending the petitioner for the last few months upon his representations.

¶43

The prayer of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is for a mandamus directing R1 to allow the petitioner to continue to act as an interim dealer under the name of M/s.Aruna Enterprises till the civil dispute in A.S.No.89 of 2019 inter se R2 to R6 in regard to the legal heirship of S.Mathialagan is finally decided.

¶44

The prayer, as it is presently couched, is too wide and cannot be countenanced. However, as a measure of arriving at a resolution of the disputes between the parties, the petitioner is directed to make a representation before R1 setting forth his suggestions on way forward within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

¶45

Upon receipt of such representation, R1 will hear the petitioner and take a view on the requisitions contained therein within an outer time limit of three (3) months from today.

¶46

The continuance of the petitioner as an interim dealer for the bunk in question shall not be disturbed till such time a decision is taken on the representation to be filed and subject to the same, or for a period of three (3) months from today, whichever is earlier.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Pg.No.4/6

¶49

W.P.No.19760 of 2024

¶50

This Writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶51

Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

19.07.2024

¶53

Index : Yes / No Speaking order Neutral citations:Yes sl

¶54

¶55

1.The Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Trichy Retail Territory, 1^st Floor, Raj Towers, Near Kalaignar Arivalayam, Karur Bye Pass Road, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Pg.No.5/6

¶58

W.P.No.19760 of 2024

¶59

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶60

¶61

W.P.No.19760 of 2024 & WMP.No.21641 of 2024

¶62

19.07.2024

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.6/6

R.Arun v. the Territory Manager (Retail)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Arun v. the Territory Manager (Retail)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Venkatachalam Vs The District Collector

Margadarasi Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of TamilNadu

M.Subbulakshmi Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Kumaravel Vs Deepa

M/S. Sky Cotex India Pvt. Ltd, Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

D.Rajkumar Vs The Registrar The chariman