Allowed

Upendra Barik v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Orissa HC29 Nov 2021WP(C)/23072/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order decided a writ petition challenging the denial of an LPG gas cylinder distributorship. The Court held that the petitioner's cash credit account qualified for the eligibility criteria and directed the oil company to award the distributorship upon compliance with other requirements.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, and the Oil Company is directed to award the distributorship to the petitioner in event he complies with all other criteria and requirements.

Upendra Barik Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Orissa HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23072 Of 2015 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Upendra Barik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Opposite Parties another

¶8

Mr. S. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶10

ORDER 29.11.2021

¶11

Order No.

¶12

11. 1. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client applied pursuant to notice for appointment of LPG gas cylinder distributor. He submits, one of the eligibility criteria was for applicant to have minimum total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as closing balance on last date for submission of application (31^st December, 2013). Particulars of the account furnished by his client was of a cash credit account. As on 31^st December, 2013, clear balance available for withdrawal in the account was Rs.4,01,849/-. This stands clarified by his banker on letter disclosed as annexure-4 in the writ petition, in answer to query made by the oil company. As such, there should be interference in directing the oil company to award his client

¶13

Page 1 of 1

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

the distributorship. Pursuant to order dated 17^th September, 2019, of Coordinate Bench, his client has deposited Rs.4,00,000/- in the savings bank account.

¶16

2. Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of the oil company and submits with reference to annexure at page-15 of the counter. It is transaction inquiry statement in respect of a/c no.13580510016282 in name of Akhandalmani fertilizer. The statement has entries of transaction and valid dates. Entry on 31^st December, 2013 says credit balance of Rs.48,535/-. He submits further, the account, in which clear balance is to be had must be savings account. Mr. Mohapatra responds by pointing out to the next entry having transaction and valid date 26^th December, 2013, there was deposited Rs.4,00,000/-. He reiterates, this has been clarified by the bank. He submits further, there be interference since his client is the only applicant and the bank has also certified in its said letter regarding his client’s monetary credibility.

¶17

3. It is true that clause-(g) in the notice requires clear balance of Rs.4,00,000/- as on 31^st December, 2013 as might be available in, inter alia, savings bank account. Court is inclined to accept that said clause covers petitioner’s cash credit account since the oil company accepted the same on the particulars furnished by petitioner and also sought

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

clarification from the bank, the account standing in the name of petitioner’s firm, where he is sole proprietor.

¶21

4. It is to be seen whether in the account petitioner had clear Rs.4,00,000/- balance as on 31^st December, 2013. Petitioner’s banker answered, in its letter disclosed as annexure-4 in the writ petition, from where following is rereproduced below:

¶22

“xxx xxx xxx and on 26/12/2013 after depositing a cash of Rs.4,00,000/- he has balance of Rs.51,849/-CR i.e. he has available balance and withdrawing capacity of (Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.51,849/-) i.e. Rs.4,01,849/- available balance. And the said account holder has that available balance and withdrawal capacity as on 31/12/2013.

¶23

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶24

And for your kind information Mr. Upender Barik is a valued customer of our bank and his transaction is very good. So his case may be kindly taken into positive direction.”

¶25

5. The subsequent deposit in savings bank account may not be compliance with the term. However, as aforesaid, the oil company has accepted the cash credit account to be an account to be looked into for

¶26

purpose of ascertaining eligibility of applicant. Hence, the objection taken now that it is not a savings bank account cannot be sustained.

¶27

More so because the oil company, again as aforesaid, wrote to

¶28

petitioner’s banker and obtained clarification. All this would not have

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

been done if the cash credit account did not qualify to be an account within clause-(g) of the notice. It can also be said that the oil company having had accepted the account for purpose of verification of eligibility, cannot afterward turn around and reject it.

¶32

6. Also as aforesaid, the bank has clarified that on 31^st December, 2013 there was available to be withdrawn Rs.4,01,849/- from the account. That petitioner had at his disposal Rs.4,00,000/- on 3^rd December, 2013 cannot be disputed.

¶33

7. The writ petition succeeds. The oil company is directed to award the distributorship to petitioner in event he complies with all other criteria and requirements.

¶34

8. The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶35

Sks

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Upendra Barik v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Barik 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

Sambalpur Dist.Co-Op.Central Bank Ltd. Vs Jogeswar Bhoi and Anr.

Jitendra Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Manas Ranjan Rout Vs Swapnarani Das

Ashok Kumar Tripathy Vs the Sole Arbitrator

Ashok Kumar Tripathy Vs the Sole Arbitrator

Pranati Pradhan Vs Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd.