Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad 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