Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Agra And Another v. M/S Allied Trader, Farrukhabad - WRIT - C No. 7789 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3081 (10 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7789 of 2006

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Indian oil Bhawan, Agra and another                                     ................Petitioners


M/s Allied Trader, Cantonment Fatehgarh                          .................Respondent

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition has been directed against the order dated 22.12.2005 passed by the appellate court as well as the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the trial court in which the petitioners defendants have been restrained from stopping the supply of petrol and petroleum products to the plaintiff's firm under the dealership, which is continuing for the last about 60 years.

The temporary injunction application was moved in a suit for permanent injunction by the respondent plaintiff stating that since the defendants petitioners  have threatened for stopping the supply of petrol and petroleum products under the dealership, which is continuing between the parties, they should be directed to not to do it and regular supply of the products to the plaintiff's firm should continue.

Mr. Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that since the dealership of the petitioners company was with a sole proprietorship firm, which has been got converted into partnership subsequently without any approval of the petitioner company, in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement as such, the petitioner have every right to stop the supply of the petrol and other products to the plaintiff's firm and no injunction should be granted.

From the facts and circumstances as appearing and as finds mention in the impugned orders and as has been demonstrated from other documents filed on record, the sole proprietorship firm was converted and reconstituted into partnership way back in the year 1992 and this fact was brought to the notice of petitioners company at that point of time only. Since then no objections were raised by the company and the supply was not withheld on account of violation of any terms and conditions that existed between the parties. All of a sudden in the year 2005, the dispute has been brought on the surface in that regard and the stoppage of supply was threatened resulting into filing of the present suit. The aforesaid facts make it more than obvious that for the last about 14 years the partnership firm has been doing the dealership business on the supply of the petroleum products to it by the defendant company and if no objection during this long period has been raised, the defendant petitioners have no case to raise it at this juncture and place its grievance in a petition before this court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The maximum, which appears to be possible now for the company petitioners is that the dealership, which is existing between the parties can be regularised in accordance with existing rules and regulations and it does not have any liberty to stop the supply of the petroleum products to the respondent plaintiff. It is in this view of the matter that the courts below have granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The orders do not appear to be challengeable in the writ petition and no relief can be given to the petitioners by this court. The only thing which is left for the petitioners to do is to regularise the dealership with the partnership firm in accordance with the existing rules and regulations. The supply of the petroleum products if has been withheld in-spite of orders of the courts below, the petitioners would commence the supply without any delay.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.