Madras High Court
M/S.Bharat Petroleum ... vs M/S.Sree Ramajeyam Service ... on 8 February, 2022
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. KANNAMMAL
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.5876 of 2021
M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Territory Manager (Retail), Chennai,
No.35, Vaidyanathan Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sree Ramajeyam Service Station,
Rep by its Managing Partner,
Mr.R.Vasudevan, having office at
No.245, Royapettah High Road,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. .. Respondent
Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read
with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.02.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge made in O.A.No.635 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan
for M/s.S.Ramasubramanian & Associates
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthik
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of this Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
The Original Side Appeal is directed against the order passed in
O.A.No.635 of 2020 dated 19.02.2021.
2. The very order of the learned Single Judge has given the dates
and events, as per which, originally O.A.No.538 of 2020 was filed by the
respondent herein seeking for an order of injunction restraining the
appellant herein from implementing the decision dated 19.09.2020 to
suspend the supplies to the respondent's petrol bunk. Another O.A.No.539
of 2020 was filed seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the
appellant herein from terminating the Dispensing Pump and selling
License Agreement dated 20.01.2017 entered into between the appellant
and the respondent pending arbitral proceedings.
3. On 22.10.2020, this Court had passed a common order
granting an order of injunction restraining the appellant herein from
terminating the agreement dated 20.01.2017 and also directing the
appellant to resume the supply of diesel to the respondent's retail outlet.
On 05.11.2020, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent
therein/the appellant herein, those applications were disposed of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
4. The appellant herein filed applications seeking for extension of
time to comply with the order dated 05.11.2020 made in O.A.Nos.538 and
539 of 2020 and the same has also been granted by this Court on
24.11.2020. Despite the said orders passed by this Court, on 27.11.2020,
Termination order came to be passed by the appellant, which was
communicated and delivered to the respondent and the petrol bunk was
taken over and operations were handed over to another dealer. Therefore,
Cont.P.No.1114 of 2020 has been filed by the respondent herein.
5. The learned Single Judge has passed an order on 19.02.2021
stating that even before the order passed by this Court on 05.11.2020, the
appellant herein had taken steps to terminate the dealership of the
respondent. The learned Single Judge, after seeing the report and noticing
the conduct of the appellant, held that the act of the appellant is not only
contumacious, but also an affront on the dignity of the Court and further
proceeded to observe that though the Court wanted to punish the Territory
Manager (Retail), Chennai, of the appellant by sending him to the Civil
Prison, however, granted one more opportunity to the appellant to redeem
itself, taking into account the apology that has been tendered by the
deponent Mr.Gururaj Nagappa Sankh, Territorial Manager (Retail). The
said order was also passed subject to the condition that the operation of
the bunk shall be restored to the respondent herein and the supply of
petrol and diesel shall commence by the closing hours of 20.02.2021 with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
default clause. The observations made against the aforesaid Territorial
Manager (Retail) in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the order are now sought to
be expunged, as subsequently an undertaking affidavit was filed before
this Court, wherein, it has been stated that the petrol bunk was handed
over to the respondent herein.
6. Now what remains to be decided in this appeal is as to
whether while making the observations against Mr.Gururaj Nagappa
Sankh, Territory Manager (Retail), this Court had taken note of the fact
that the the officer of the appellant Corporation had been acting in
discharge of his duty, and that the said observations have to be expunged
as it would reflect in his career records.
7. In this regard, it would be appropriate to advert to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. V. Narmada
Bachao Andolan, (2011) 12 SCC 689, wherein, it was held that the
Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, can expunge the adverse remarks even
suo-motu or on application of a party on a justifiable ground in exceptional
cases. It is relevant to reproduce the following observations :
"13. The cardinal principle of the administration of
justice requires for proper freedom and independence of
Judges and such independence must be maintained and
Judges must be allowed to perform their functions freely and
fairly and without undue interference by anybody, even by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
this Court. However, it is also equally important that in
expressing their opinions the Judges must be guided by
consideration of justice, fair play and restraint. It should not
be frequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very
purpose for which they are made. Thus, it is relevant to
consider:
(a) whether the party whose conduct is in
question is before the court or has an opportunity of
explaining or defending himself;
(b) whether there is evidence on record bearing
on that conduct justifying the remarks; and
(c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the
case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that
conduct."
8. Earlier in Dr.Dilip Kumar Deka V. State of Assam, (1996)
(6) SCC 234 also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended the
usage of temperate language and moderate expressions while criticising a
party, for judicious restraint in such matters only lends more dignity to the
high office.
9. Mr.S.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
also no serious objection for expunging the above said remarks.
Accordingly, the same are expunged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
10. In view of the above, there is no further adjudication required
in this appeal. Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (S.K., J.)
08.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
S. KANNAMMAL
rsi
O.S.A(CAD).No.130 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.5876 of 2021
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
