Manipur High Court
M/S Krishna Premi Oil City (Retail ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 2 Ors on 6 August, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 906 of 2022
M/S Krishna Premi Oil City (Retail Outlet and SKO Agency)
Dealer Indian Oil Corporation Limited
.....Petitioner/s
- Versus -
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 2 Ors.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
06.08.2025
[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted
by Ms. N. Savitri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.
Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. L. Lia, learned
counsel for the IOC.
[2] The petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the
IOC to approve the memorandum for re-constitution of the dealership
from partnership firm to a proprietorship firm.
[3] It may be stated that the petitioner firm inherited from M/S
Singh & Co. vide order dated 01.01.1997 issued by the respondent.
Thereafter, two persons i.e. Jaiprakash Singh and Sarungbam Premi
Devi entered into deed of partnership dated 28.05.1999 for smooth
running of business as a source of proprietor of M/S Singh & Co. (now
re-designated as M/S Krishna Premi Oil City) without any change in
terms of the license earlier given by the respondent.
[4] After the death of one of the partner i.e. Jaiprakash
Singh, surviving partner i.e. Sarungbam Premi Devi submitted a
proposal for re-constitution of the partnership to a sole proprietor. In
this regard, no objection certificate has been given by the LRs of the
Jaiprakash Singh i.e. his wife Mrs. Renu Singh (wife), daughters
namely Mrs. Shalini Shah, Mrs. Nalini Singh and Mrs. Dimple Sigh
Kochhar and his son Mr. Raj Singh.
[5] The petitioner also filed an additional affidavit dated
29.07.2025 reproducing for re-constitution of guidelines of dealership,
especially para 7 and the same is read as:
"7. In cases where Nominee(s)/Legal Heir(s) not
responding: In cases where one or more of the
Nominee(s)/Legal heir(s) of deceased
proprietor/partner(s) have not given their consent within
specified period of 30 days, another time period of 30
days (as reminder) shall be given to the nominee(s)/legal
heir(s) for expressing their willingness to join the
dealership failing which, it will be treated that they {non-
responding nominee(s)/legal heir(s) of deceased
proprietor/partner(s)} are unwilling to be inducted in the
Dealership and the OMC shall be at liberty to exercise its
rights to approve re-constitution of the Dealership with
the willing nominee(s)/legal heir(s). However, the
surviving/incoming proprietor/partner(s) of the
reconstituted Dealership will have to indemnity the OMC
against {Annexure-12} any claims or demands which may
be made in future."
[6] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also refers to
the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.
1381 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 titled Indian Oil Corporation Limited &
Ors. vs. M/S Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors. where it was held that IOC
has no role for determining who should be the members of the
partnership in the re-constituted members when some of the original
partners are expired and some of the surviving LRs are not interested.
It is stated that a direction be issued to the respondent to accept
proposal for reconstitution of the dealership from partnership firm to a
proprietorship firm.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior
counsel for the IOC, submits that the proposal for re-constitution as
sole partnership has been returned to the petitioner for giving further
information and giving necessary document. Learned senior counsel
for the IOC has pointed out that there are LRs of Jaiprakash Singh,
who have to submit no objection certificate by the petitioner.
[8] Learned senior counsel for the IOC also refers to clause
7 of the guidelines of the IOC which says that if some of the surviving
LRs of the deceased partner are not interested in joining the re-
constituted firm then the firm has to submit undertaking in the form of
indemnity so that the firm will be liable to indemnity the OMC against
any claim or demand which may be made in future (Annexure-12 of the
Guidelines). If these requisite documents are submitted by the
petitioner, the requisition can be considered.
[9] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner may be given two weeks' time to submit a fresh proposal with
the requisite document, including the undertaking in the form of
indemnity as mentioned in clause 7 of the guidelines issued by the
authority.
[10] With this observation, writ petition is disposed of. The
petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh proposal of changing the nature
of the firm from the partner for re-constitution of the firm from
partnership to sole proprietorship along with the requisite document as
per guidelines within a period of (4) four weeks. IOC shall consider the
fresh representation within a further period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of the representation.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.08.07
MARING 16:22:08 +05'30'
