Rajendra Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 189 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5376/2019

Rajendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Gangaram Choudhary, Aged
About 52 Years, B/c Jat, Partners M/s Shiv Choudhary Motors,
Dealer Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Tonk Road, Sanganer,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through The Chief Regional
Manager (Retail Sales) Indian Oil Bhawan, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. R.K. Daga
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Vertika
                                Mehra

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.5.10.2019

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

Jaipur in Civil Misc. Application No.98/2019 titled as Rajendra

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

which learned trial court had dismissed the temporary injunction

application filed by the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that respondent-

defendant (for short 'the defendant') has wrongly terminated the

dealership agreement of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the

plaintiff submits that plaintiff was ready (as per partnership deed)

to execute the dealership agreement but his brother had not

(2 of 3) [CMA-5376/2019]

executed the dealership agreement. Learned counsel for the

plaintiff also submits that partnership was executed on 31.3.1993

and respondent-Company had supplied the oil till 2019. So,

conduct of the respondent-Company clearly shows that they had

given implied permission to run the petrol pump. In these

circumstances, dealership cannot be terminated. So, order of the

trial court be quashed.

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).

Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and

submitted that defendant had terminated dealership because the

partnership firm had not executed/submitted the dealership

agreement. So, trial court has rightly dismissed the application

filed by the appellant. 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

defendant.

It is admitted position that partnership firm of the plaintiff

had not executed the dealership agreement. After that the

defendant had terminated the dealership, after giving an

(3 of 3) [CMA-5376/2019]

opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. So, in my considered

opinion, trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the

application for temporary injunction 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 80.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)