Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Fresh Review of Termination Decision by Indian Oil Corporation Limited in LPG Distributorship: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has ordered a fresh review of the termination decision taken by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in a case involving the termination of LPG Distributorship. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal on 19th July 2023.

The petitioner, Suman Sheoran Alias Suman Chahal, had approached the High Court seeking the setting aside of the termination order dated 30th June 2022 (Annexure P-5) by IOCL, which resulted in the termination of her LPG Distributorship.

The case revolved around allegations raised against the petitioner, including claims of her involvement in an “agreement to sell” with her mother-in-law and unauthorized foreign visits, among others. The petitioner vehemently denied these allegations, stating that the alleged documents were forged and that she had never entered into any agreement to sell. She also provided evidence that her foreign visits were authorized and that she had delivered motivational lectures without remuneration.

During the hearing, Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the impugned order lacked specific findings on the allegations and failed to examine the evidence properly. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents-corporation, defended the termination decision, stating that it was made within the terms of the contract, which allowed termination with 30 days’ notice.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal issued the verdict. The court directed IOCL to pass a fresh order within two months, allowing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering all documents on record. The corporation was instructed to address all the issues raised in the show cause notice and the petitioner’s reply before making a final decision on the termination.

The judgment further clarified that the court’s observations should not be seen as expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The respondent-authority was advised to proceed with the new review in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the court’s observations.

This ruling marks a significant development in the case, giving the petitioner another chance to present her case and defend her LPG Distributorship. The fresh review is expected to bring clarity to the matter and ensure a fair and just decision in accordance with the law.

 Date of Decision: 19th July 2023

Suman Sheoran Alias Suman Chahal  vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Suman_Sheoran_Alias_Suman_Chahal_vs_Indian_Oil_Corporation_Limited_on_19_July_2023_P^0H.pdf"]

Latest Legal News