Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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