Rajendra Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 188 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR
         S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1704/2019
Rajendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Gangaram Choudhary, Aged
About 51 Years, B/c Jat, Partners M/s Shiv Choudhary Motors,
Dealers Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Tonk Road, Sanganer
Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through The Chief Regional
Manager (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Bhawan, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Ramprakash Choudhary S/o Shri Gangaram Choudhary,
Resident Of Plot No. F 084, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. R.K. Daga
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Tapasvi Vashishth
                                Mr. Vishvesh Gupta, Mr. Kishan Swami
                                Mr. Sanjay Gangwar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 06/01/2023

This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff') against the order dt.29.3.2019

passed by Additional District Judge No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur in Civil Misc. Application No.177/2015 titled as Rajendra

Kumar Choudhary vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and anr. by

which learned trial court has dismissed the temporary injunction

application filed by the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff had

filed a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the

respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') and also filed

an application for temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the

plaintiff submits that in the suit plaintiff clearly stated that M/s.

Shiv Choudhary Motors was partnership firm having its partner

(2 of 3) [CMA-1704/2019]

Smt. Nanchhi Devi and Ram Prakash Choudhary. A partnership

deed was executed between the partnership firm and Indian Oil

Corporation Limited on 31.3.1976. After the retirement of Nanchhi

Devi, plaintiff was inducted as a partner and a new partnership

deed was executed on 31.3.1993 between Rajendra Kumar

Choudhary and Ramprakash Choudhary and they filed an

application before defendant No.1 for change of management

which was allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that

as per the partnership deed, it is duty of the every partner to work

as per terms and conditions of the partnership deed. Learned

counsel for the plaintiff submits that as per Sections 9 & 11 of the

Indian Partnership Act, partners are bound to work as per

partnership deed but defendant No.2 inspite of repeated requests

did not turn up to complete the formalities before the defendant

No.1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is

ready to execute the documents but defendant No.2 is not

obeying the partnership deed and he has not submitted/executed

the documents before defendant No.1. So, defendant No.2 be

directed to submit/execute the documents. Learned counsel for

the plaintiff also submits that trial court has wrongly dismissed the

temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff. So, order of

the trial court dt.29.3.2019 be set aside.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following

judgments: (1) Sri Venkateswar Service Station vs. Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; (2) Vipin Kumar Agarwal vs. Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 Uttarakhand 67

and (3) M/s. Dharm Vrat Arya & Co. vs. M/s. Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. RLR 1992 (2).

(3 of 3) [CMA-1704/2019]

Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and

submitted that defendant No.1 had terminated dealership of the

plaintiff vide letter dt. 17.9.2019. So, there is no prima facie case

in favour of the plaintiff. Learned trial court has rightly dismissed

the temporary application filed by the plaintiff. So, appeal be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritsar Gas Service and ors. reported in

(1991) 1 SCC 533.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

It is admitted position that after the re-constitution of the

partnership and instructions of defendant No.1, dealership

agreement was not submitted/executed by plaintiff who was a

partner in the partnership deed and accordingly the defendant

No.1 had terminated the dealership of the plaintiff vide letter

dt.17.9.2019. Defendant No.2 clearly stated that the plaintiff is

not furnishing the accounts, so, he does not want to continue as a

partner in the partnership firm. So, in my considered opinion, trial

court has rightly dismissed the temporary application filed by the

plaintiff. The present appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be

dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly.

Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 81.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)