High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Indian Oil Dealership Agreement by Notice

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of termination of an Indian Oil Corporation dealership agreement by notice. The case concerned clause (3) of the dealership agreement, which permitted either party to terminate the contract by giving a three-month notice without requiring any acceptance from the other party.

The dispute arose when the respondent, a dealer, gave notice of termination of the dealership agreement, which the petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation, alleged was not accepted. The matter went to arbitration, and the arbitrator found that the notice was validly terminated and that acceptance was not necessary.

The respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was dismissed by the District Judge. However, the High Court allowed the challenge and set aside the award. It also ordered the restoration of the dealership to the respondent and left it open for them to claim damages.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that clause (3) of the dealership agreement expressly allowed for the premature termination of the contract by either party by giving a three-month notice without requiring any acceptance. The court found that the arbitrator's decision was not perverse and closed the door for judicial intervention. The court also held that the High Court acted illegally by interfering with the arbitrator's finding and modifying the award, and it set aside the High Court's order.

Supreme Court upheld the validity of termination by notice under clause (3) of the dealership agreement and set aside the High Court's order for restoration of the dealership to the respondent and for damages.

D.D-09.May .2023

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.   vs M/S. SATHYANARAYANA SERVICE STATION & ANR    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/09-May-2023-IOC-Vs-SATHYANARAYANA-SERVICE.pdf"]

Latest Legal News