Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Dealership Termination Must Comply with Procedural Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Hindustan Petroleum's Termination Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court upheld the termination of the dealership agreement between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Dharamnath Singh, dismissing procedural lapses in sample collection by SGS India as grounds for quashing the termination.

Background: HPCL terminated the dealership of Dharamnath Singh after fuel samples collected by SGS India failed quality tests.

Procedural Challenge: The respondent contested the sample collection process, arguing it violated Clause 7 of the Control Order, which mandates sample collection by specific authorized officers.

High Court's Decision: The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court sided with the respondent, finding that SGS India was not authorized under Clause 7, thus invalidating the sample collection process.

Appellant's Argument: HPCL argued that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) allowed third-party agencies to collect samples.

Court's Ruling: "While the guidelines allowed administrative convenience, they could not override statutory provisions." The dealership was terminated for contractual breaches, not under the Control Order, hence procedural requirements of Clause 7 were deemed inapplicable.

Breach of Agreement: The dealership was found in violation of multiple clauses (26, 27, 44, 58(i), and (m)) of the dealership agreement.

Procedural Compliance: The termination followed the procedures outlined in the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, which the court found sufficient for contractual enforcement.

Judicial Precedents:

Adherence to Prior Judgments: The court emphasized compliance with procedural rules and guidelines, citing R.M. Service Centre's precedent where dealership termination for contractual breaches without statutory violations was upheld.

Distinction from Criminal Prosecution: The respondent was not prosecuted under the Control Order, and the dealership termination was based solely on contractual terms, thus negating the need to adhere to Control Order procedures.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, validating the termination of the dealership agreement. It concluded that the procedural lapses in sample collection by SGS India were not grounds for reversing the termination, which was based on clear contractual breaches.

Date of Decision: 17th May 2024

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Dharamnath Singh & Ors.

Similar News