Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Allahabad High Court Quashes ‘Unsubstantiated’ Termination Orders, Directs Corporation to Resume Supply Within a Week

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the termination orders against the petitioners, stating that arbitration is “not an efficacious remedy for the restoration of a terminated dealership.” The Court has directed the Corporation to resume the supply to the petitioners’ retail outlet within a week.

The petitioners had been embroiled in multiple rounds of litigation, including arbitration and writ petitions, against the Corporation’s termination orders. The Court found that the Corporation’s allegations of tampering with dispensing units were “unsubstantiated,” noting that no concrete evidence, such as extra wires or attachments, was presented.

“The mere presence of marks on the motherboard was deemed insufficient for termination,” the Court observed. It scrutinized the relevant clauses in the dealership agreement and found that the petitioners did not violate any of these clauses.

The Court also noted that the Corporation did not provide a fitness certificate for the reinstalled dispensing unit, thereby weakening its case against the petitioners. “In absence of such finding against the petitioner, the impugned termination order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,” the Court stated.

The Court cited a similar case, M/s Modern Service Station Vs. IOC & Others, to bolster its decision in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for substantive reasoning in termination orders.

The Court’s decision has been hailed as a significant ruling that could set a precedent for similar cases involving dealership agreements and termination orders. The Corporation has been directed to resume the supply to the petitioners’ retail outlet within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Date of Decision:  04 – 09 - 2023

M/S Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra, Aliganj And Another vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others             

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Document-1-41.pdf"]       

Latest Legal News