Allowed

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Auto Oil

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012CR/1889/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition under Article 227, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing the defendant's application. The Court held that since the dealership was terminated, the suit seeking injunction against supply cessation was rendered infructuous. The plaintiff was given liberty to challenge the termination order via a separate suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the trial court was set aside; the application for necessitating termination was accepted; the suit was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to file a separate suit challenging

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1889 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.1889 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.02.2012

¶5

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited

....Petitioner

Versus

M/s Auto Oil

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral)

¶14

Defendant-M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar thereby, dismissing application (Annexure P-3) moved by defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing the suit instituted by respondent-plaintiff M/s Auto Oil through proprietor Mrs. Arti Nobbs against the defendant-petitioner as having been rendered infructuous.

¶15

Case of the plaintiff-respondent is that Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora was sole proprietor of M/s Auto Oils. A dealership agreement was duly entered into between Mrs Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora and defendant-petitioner. On her death, the defendant transferred the dealership to Mrs Arti Nobbs as proprietor of M/s Auto Oils subject to the condition that Arti Nobbs had to give consent of her brother and sister which was accordingly given. However, the defendant issued show cause notice to the plaintiff for terminating the dealership. Plaintiff in the suit challenged the said show cause notice and also sought injunction restraining the defendant from stopping supplies of petroleum products to

¶16

Civil Revision No.1889 of 2011

¶17

¶18

the plaintiff.

¶19

Defendant moved application (Annexure P-3) alleging that dealership of M/s Auto Oils has been terminated during pendency of the suit vide order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) because after death of the original dealer Sheh Lata Arora, reconstitution of the dealer could not be made by her legal heirs. It is, thus, alleged that the suit has been rendered infructuous in view of termination of the dealership.

¶20

Plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-4) resisted the application and pleaded that the matter was already pending in this court. It was also pleaded that reconstitution of the dealer M/s Auto Oils has already been allowed by the defendant. Various other pleas were also raised.

¶21

Learned trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-7) dismissed the application (Annexure P-3) moved by the defendant. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the defendant has preferred the instant revision petition.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner contended that since dealership of M/s Auto Oils has been terminated, the instant suit to challenge show cause notice with consequential permanent injunction has been rendered infructuous. It was also contended that there was personal contract between defendant and Ms.Kamal Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora and on her death, her legal heirs have no right to sue as held by this Court in order dated 20.04.2011 in Civil Revision No.4885 of 1999 titled as Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited . In that case, Mrs.Kamla Arora @Sneh Lata Arora had filed suit to challenge an earlier show cause notice issued to her by the defendant. Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 moved in that case by the defendant was dismissed by the trial court but was allowed by Appellate

¶24

Civil Revision No.1889 of 2011

¶25

¶26

Court. Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora-plaintiff of that case filed Civil Revision No.4885 of 1999 to challenge the order of appellate court. During pendency of that revision petition, Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora died. Present plaintiff Mrs. Arti Nobbs moved an application for being impleaded as legal heir of Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora in that revision petition. It was held that it was personal right of Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora and after her death, right to sue does not survive. Accordingly, application moved by present plaintiff Arti Nobbs for being impleaded as legal heir of Mrs.Kamla Arora @ Sneh Lata Arora was dismissed and consequently, the said revision petition was dismissed as infructuous.

¶27

Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that if the show cause notice challenged in the suit is declared null and void, consequent termination order of dealership would automatically fall and relief can be moulded accordingly. It was also contended that the plaintiff can amend the plaint to challenge the termination order Annexure P-2.

¶28

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the dealership of M/s Auto Oils has been terminated vide order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the defendant. Consequently, the suit instituted by plaintiff-respondent has been rendered infructuous because without setting aside the termination order of dealership, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is supposed to challenge the termination order of dealership. By now, no application for amendment of plaint has been filed, although, termination order (Annexure P-2) was passed almost four years ago. In any event, if the plaintiff has any right to challenge the termination order, the plaintiff can do so by separate suit in accordance with law. The present suit has been rendered infructuous because the dealership has already been terminated and accordingly, suit to challenge show cause notice only with consequential relief of permanent

¶29

Civil Revision No.1889 of 2011

¶30

¶31

injunction cannot continue having been rendered infructuous.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed . Impugned order (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application (Anenxure P-3) moved by defendant-petitioner is accepted and suit filed by plaintiff-respondent is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the plaintiff to challenge the termination order of dealership (Annexure P-2)

¶33

in accordance with law.

¶34

(L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶35

14.02.2012 Seema-II

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Auto Oil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Auto Oil

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

Joga Singh Vs Didar Singh

Bajwa Agro Industries Ltd. Vs Tesoro Indo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Jagsir Singh Vs Gursewak Gir

Netra Pal Vs V.S.K.D. Smith and Ors.

M/S Allwyn Enterprises (India) Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Others

Akal Education Society Vs Madan Lal