M/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008

was before t__._hi-I f.’.’oI.21r-t in La e.-;..r.he.-‘ I-fit

l.Pl..IIL.lI.l’.i’.I’ ” .’

attempt in point out that he would be in

establish by the said documents the it i

General Manager could he -displweflliii V. ‘ it

4_._ KL. Ilfllllfl’ Ii-um th-

.5… ..,.,.m.,..t…, …. …..
fepofifiefit “””iif’:, at titiiat the dealership
agreement is finpugnod
is a same would lie in
’11’? such the writ petition
ii? of India woukl not be
maintainahie right is violated. On this
oouiiael would contend that even while

run…»

In; ~ Qua” ‘I…-…’I …..¢-L:-‘..x.1l..l 41……’ …….._….II..- ¢.I…’_

would the writ jurisdiction in a matter of this

:However, only on noticing that the petitioner had

allegations against the Territoiy Manager and since the

___*l’erritmy Manager himself has decided the case. this Court

felt that there would be an element of bias and therefore,

I
J:

0;

f’–.—-.4-

I..l.I.H.l.. lllllllllllly ll!-IE \..JJi.:I.II.’

since there was violation of principles of ‘ 1

to that extent, this Court had interfered’ oft

bias was removed by directing

to redo the matter afresh » it

obj-wee to M f!_..|-ed by the _. The C’-eLe_,Ji _h.Q3._,l;Q.gl.!!’

(nth; has fi’1IT.i’I’:iif”uT:1″‘ “nag-its in “a,i;mu.pum uu $ as

H’

avermed in thejzetifinm” other
available independently
and géritougn the petitioner did
not the General Manager (south)

has without basis made allegations

in “even making the General Manager

to the petition. Therefore, when

of-.fie:”.rar.a%r. is –…….-“e aft.-..~r

the

m$.-xi-..g

__-_1I_’I_ A_I.._

objections f~*and assessment of the avauaoie, me

xsameg it miinnot be examined in a writ junad’ action’ ‘ . The only”

would be to tile a suit if the evidence is to be

it ___§11eaaaeased and a finding of fact is to be rendered. Without

prejudice to the said contention, the learned counsel with

I
1:

1(

reference to the mcoids produced befote this
to the termination of dealership outii V’
suflic1en’ t documents available

decision is based on also V L’

otjiezwige, Lheie awe gen diuputecp

‘pardes and me -pa.-3-me; .1:-.=’g.-.:.-‘…=..-=-. and
according to as admitizediy
there are fit the panics in
civil an though according to
the -i.t_Fia __1:aoire. The learned counsel would
also in detail In point out that all

oontentionow petitioner including the additional

Thus by the General Manager

” ‘..i.=I..|*..e:’ p-groper m-……..nl_I,rei.s. has mine in his

;…__1–_:__L’~. ‘V m-|.___r___ LI..- .._…… .:|……… ..
Illclcl. 1’3. I-I-It “Inc ‘I H II

4

A» …..II &-nu
I U311 IUJ

5. In neply to the contention regarding the

maintainability of the writ petition. the petitioner would

I
12

.4?

contend that this Court, at the earlier
entertained the writ petition, pqua»-.-moo V
remanded the matter for fresh es

same would indicate that it is A

…. – .. ……. of
iiiirier nruc–‘–1e 226 of sjfiintiia as held by the
Honiae Supreme tiig: caafe_or HARBANSLAL smmm

AND ANoT;§e.gR’§j:;tp:vs; ‘j.:1n:mjA;s:–V ifAOtLV:'”C;ORPORATlON urn

6., “i_”noi1§;5ii«.”io« the petitioner and the

learned ieepondent extensively on the merits
v of Ieganling the inatanoes which led to
‘ of the dealership agreement, the question at

be whether these disputed aspects of the

be considered in a writ petit1on’ under Arne’ le

t. n’225_\ofvthe Constitution of India?

:4
E?’
E
C
E
5
E
9
E
E
E
as
.:I
E
‘4’»
E’:

if

this Court in W.P.No.2 19 10/01 at the earlier

the petitioner was before this Court l V’

dated 28.5.2001 passed by the

of the same would indicate

befan; this mg of bias

-.’=.f.fi’.at the .eI=’imI}r –.,”‘”‘md * at the
Tenitcry rdanagarfoy 23.94.;-.~x*.1
and ‘dnégadona against the
rm’-oner also we mm
allega;tio11_aa.A Manager and thexefom the
same decided the dispute with an

open’ the said petition, the Territory

. ., flee in person as the second respondent

. E5

I_n9.d._e= It was t_.he1efi_r:e ctmtencled

.L …

u–4I.

‘ Aaibgdddns, if the ‘”I”errito1y Manager himself decides the case

‘ts the t1ernu’:nan’cn of dealership agreement, the

l jaetzitzioner cannot expect justice from a person against whom

allegations were made since he is likely to look at the case

I
I7»

!
II

with bias. It is in that regard. it was found

violation of principles of natural j1r9%- inaflfi 2

shall be a judge in his own .

mama’, thi Court had comél “it ‘ ll

be prep! for the !|.v|.gA1..ti.ag2″«_{?.’-39.-gatla} 9:.— the

.__¢4.._, .°.. __.1_.., L. .. – L ‘ V “.3
nu’.lI.u:l Ill UIUDI In 11:11: -:5 in 3 9:01.11.

:10, Court normally this
Court in not entertain a
petitiorr Vmadc in cancelling the
dealcixghipi was entered inm between the
rmormallyr relegate the parties to
appgrbach for appropriate reliefs. But, the

as of «macs

(lI¥§’.rIn-I’ I-if flan 1-Inuvusu-urlnnul-_(“‘.nu-nu-nun:-xi-L-u-n I-nasal Isa-\I–a-I

IIJ II: J. t.l\.Il~l.¥l\Al.I I.” K.-Ill I-l’|J.I Gil-IIJvl~l

oorriIar*y*ir§}ti1c rules of natural justice and had given verdict

xagniriaet. other person by accepting his personal bias.

8. Therefore, the said decision itself would indicate

that but for the said fact, this Court would not have

I
‘.i

entertained the writ petition when the

was terminated at the earlielf-“inotanchthe. ‘ ”

reconsideration, no doubt, the hot:

tjegotiono the

fi*.:’t-Lon to cont.-end t.ha_t. he 91.2.-ohéa 2; .t T1.-5.-uagh

the said aiiegationo that the
General Managei’ _(_aoutli)'”ho’§: in person
as a §”.*’.4’t1l!€.:h.tt:i_a representing the
the pemonal allegations
be (-‘tourt. since that is the settled
‘in when this Court remanded the
‘V ctnznsitlerafion by the General Manager

-_..I 3′

«{.’…;v-t did n_t. __k:e out any or

“+*”*i’p%t. aha-Terist the %.era’. hiaafif {ea-.:t.’:} eémer fir

or prior to the dispooai of the earfier writ

AA There was no interaction between the General

(south) and the petitioner by way of any complaint

U for allegations as had oocuned in the case of the “l’enilnry

Manager. The petitioner, for the that time, has made certain

I
la

4|:

allegations again’ at the General Manager afiltfi
decision’ has been rendemd again” it
allegations appear to be more of tit’. _

enbe@ee eenidering tit’

Thenfim 9… the 9- * 1!,’ the wh_ir.=!1

was avaiiabie W’t”1e1″1 théfvvaa etepefi at’
is not available_:&t__ order
in this the point of View of
Therefore, the main
iiigzeélient the writ petition under Article 226
of the in not available to the petitioner

at’.t;.};ti’aVi.§t1nctI1’1’e,V_VV’ ” V”

’43
E?

I
I
E
:4
i
a

i’
3
I
3
E:

53′
E?

I
§

3.
3
u

;___A_. :___1 ‘I.

as, to _*wh.eéther the writ petition oouiti be uy

eonaittei-ing that the order impugned as one hem’ g arbitrary
as to whether the dealership agmemecnt has been

6 on irrelevant and non-existent grounds so as to

call for interfinenoe as contended by the petitioner by relying

I
J

ll 15.:

on the decision in the case of HARBANSLAL – 4

this aspect, Sri. K Slllnan, ciiiiiia¢i;’g’.§p.gau” ~ ‘T;-iii’g ftfl’ iii.,’ A

mpondent would place :V’c>ff’€’§1:e

Hon’blc supmme Court in Ii4l_/.*£3.,..RAIflili’\iK!2ls!Fll§iA2’vA£}A.lWlALi *

65 ores Vs. STATE or BIHAR__fiND ions l[uofr*/)3 457],
whcroin it has been “as; lienguodors _
Bui4_Vir’::o of Waist’ be

oi! tho Sims of

1

V 3:, fielezl ” of mrrtrnct regarding

_ with whom. the
” At this stage, no

_ _ “tho purely in its oaaeoutive

is by oiiligcifioris which
or ii-iii St.-1-.33 ~.-.i.»i:.Ii gr-.9
or into every trtmsaclion entered mo in
ofits oorisfimfional powers. But, after
Slate or its agents have entered into the field

” ordinary conlmot, the relations are no longer
governed by the oonstifutloruai pmrriaioras but’ by
the la.-g,-..llg; 3.-a.’.’d mnsrwwot 1.-:2.’-.=.-‘.-‘A

and obligations of the _par1r’es inter are. No
question arises of violation of Article 14 or ofany

J2

‘I’l

other oonstimfimml provision when H

perform any act. in mi: f

Ah-urn Hid: nrwufa-rnnll ‘lllllfifl hon ‘

Ii’-QIIIE ‘I:”I|j \.fl”5’l”l”7i “‘«?'” GLJIIJ-”

are bound by the
unless some statute ste_§é:-

spatial   an 
in the mmua    from

10.2′ i\iii§.1?§;g\fiHAi<r'<i"HiiA AGARWAL
(ample) Supreme Court has
stamaflgat the eommee " ' tion under Article 226 is at

a sAta9,eA 'tlie into the contract. But, after the

V' – is the relations are no longer governed

the provision' 3, but by the legally_ e valid'

¢_i_etem_1i_I;ee ri.g!;I_2e 9!' mg

an Initial: Ilrnifltl Hun nulfihul' (in nnflvinn

W. 3|! VI'-IIuII-fl' 'WC' III III'! IJCIIIZ-(WI V-'l8 SUI' I-I-IE6

.__a_ __£II ._I__ ____ .L_ A.__'l__.

iit'Jii'l'3f, fiii wul also have I!) num-

;note ofthe fact that if certain statutory oontmetn are entered

into, still this Court would have jurisdiction. But. in the

1
ii

instant case. the contract between the

Iepondenbcorpomtion is not a stgtutoty K ”

decision of the Hon’ble SuP”””° ~§voinlti”th””:’.

applicable to the facts of

counsel has placed reliance Court in

l\.-!;’S..!..lN!’!’Y ‘os?:AT§oiEj»o:,Ho:;A§u’oion. DEALERS vs.

ITS GENERAL R4’2ef*%’ 1) w’nemm’ this

Court.” a smaller’ ‘ dealership
tioncluaion that in View of the
cadstnntxfor mg clause for resolution of the

dispute, under Art1c’le 226 of the

wotlltlwnot be mam’ mun’ ble in view’ of the.

‘V.tlt_V.m.V_:s%i–.g,-.2 In this Court while coming to the

Supictrie Court in case wh”h is iiliou –a-. u –

csmelaasfia has notic-r’.;.. the dfllum. of me Hon’tI.le

er. In any event, on the sand’ decision’ ‘ relied on by

the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent would

seek to distinguish that the Hoirble Supreme Court haa

1
1.2

come to the said conclusion after clearly

jurist!’ neon’ ‘ to interfere despite ‘lI.!Al!i1i’1$r”‘VV.4t”‘)i;./I,&l’t.Ver.’41_’_r:ati’*£’.’_e”

remedy is only in the three

none of the contingencies the . L’

the !~!on’h1e Snprerne ho” instance

Therefore, decision
cannot

1, has placed strong reliance on
the ” proper to exa1nrn’ e this aspect
even streaming. Court in the case of M/S unm

g;r§::évri;:n” segment, cited supra had not1ced’ and

in the case of n5RBr’s?’s’S’un’ L. ‘um”‘

AA Supreme Court was g a of

of the arbitration clause as an alternative remedy

fond fiuther the specific instance of the sample taken was the

only instance due to which the termination of the agreement

I

)2

‘av

was made and that instance was analysed asjetn

and non-existent ground on that ”

reading rem rded and the 1uanner:”:i«11’;’=jv”rs.te}t’ttt1»1e su

was done. It. is in that I-ion’b.le ‘

came to the conclusion thut”.’he=._» ~ the

exmptzons s*n………

‘~<
E?

4:’
‘FF’
3

. , g D A.

E

12. % Lit; ti.ie:’itIstant case, fitst anti
tbremqst, with the question of
existenee_ way of arbitmtion. But
what is be is” that the terminated dealemhip

agreement ‘Vise-.s’c=.~6nt1h”act’ between the parties and therefore,

.theV.eiiati:-xiienlent of the terms would be within the

V Ciourt. Secondly, if there are disputed

‘nesfitfirzs sat’ fact. wifch r.-55-sire, to M and
._ _ . . a 1

assesstnent of such fleuoe, the fofiiin iTr’1’i’i’lI’.’1 1″ th-

V’ Oourt. Further in the instant case, even though the

question of samples not conforming to the stmndmds,

inasmuch as them is an allegation that spurious lubricants

I

5.

A (‘+nfiefin..en and ti’…-

waa sold, that is not the only reason on which h’ <

agreement has been terminated. it

aspects in mind. if the order

Linpugned in this petition is the it, me?'

anon: nmnnlrl '
mil.'-I ""|u"'$-I

eazrfier Writ petifion, "fl[liLZ:V[J ' '
objection statement mjlmb 'ehowe.-muse'. ntfimcfi" dated 9.3.200" 1

and each of putmb, the petitioner and
the end commissions by the
petitioner by the Geneml Manager
(south); has thereafter been adverted tn
clause contained in the Marketing

a of the Petroleum

iovi_.Z

3

an :IIw\. rg ..

‘1

_y 1 1 Inc Ivan uuuuuuuuufi, uuuu

X r (south) has come to his cone iusion.

_ men tti._.’ii) breaches committed by the petitioner” , in respect of

dealership agreement, even though the petitioner

it _,%contends that in the corrigendum these aspects were not

indicated, it is diflicult to accept that the show cause notice

1

la

a
I

dated 9.5.2001 was given a go–bye and only

would arise fin’ consideration» ‘sii.-we

paragraph of the order impugned

berth the show cause noticed I’ V it

petition has directed ‘:’I–:.v:T.?-ll’ ah
dated 9.5.2m1_:ana be In the
same. the 22.5.2001 cannot
be of the dated

9.5. 1., opportunity granted.

5 “13. ?r2:oi:gh a normal circumstance, the above

‘ Id 11 ve been aitflitfient my

1 punk’ :1 . at:-pea.-ed pa-I’t_5.’=m=-13..-:~.-;.-en 533:’.

made pleas that the reasons assigned by the

_ Manager (south) is not based on records, but has

made only to cover up the allegations made by the

it ___§’l’erritmy Manager, I have proceeded to examine as to

whether it was an empty formality as contended by the

I .

‘I

petitioner. In that regard apart from the fact

ccrtam correspondences addressedeebgrp ” fr’ it it

Manager durm’ g the year 2000 vvihiclifihas it in

the impugned order itself, has me» L’

to eJami_ne this aspect of thepprnatter into the
$1133 trrai.-:tai.*sm pt}??? “zV”é’:’.”‘;”.”‘;l'”I’.t*.,.1.lI!’1′)(.’…-:_’.J.a
“i”herefore, in wr mm the
masons are ineievant or
non-vesgisteritpp call for interference, I
havetthVeV_ undertaking this exercise, it
is notioedp that disputes between the panics’

the ‘hasiiheen brewing for quite some time and

” cum’ mal’ proeeed_ ings are pending

.. .tl*se’ The-.1!-h

the documents which are avai}ab ” 0″

AA ii’ picture of the matter and made an attempt to

‘Veoiflend that the documents produced by the petitioner at ‘L’

series would disprove the contention of the respondents, I

have deliberately refrained myself from specifically referring

I
la

25

to each document and discussing the

same, since I do not wish to it

are all disputed questions of

and appieciatjon of the same a writ’ V it

Article 2:26 of the C:onstitifiion__ [in tl-n’: ‘”*1’itents
of the file wotild’ have placed
reliance on their conclusion
whileltlie of the same and
as such,._a -nature cannot be decided on oath
against’ oath, would have to tender evidence

establish’ Ieapective cases. But all that can he said

is *.i:’.’=s-..”t.Ai~.’. isagiot an empty-,r fcrr.r.n..n…Lhr but !.Ias,ed_ on

. w_l1ici’1~i:”* to by the app-mpr-Lane %:’:.:-.1-..

it One other aspect of the matter is. admittedly even

to the petitioner, with regard to the allegation

regarding selling spurious lubricants and also with regard to

the allegation of short delivery alleged by the respondents.

I

A

‘I

the petitioner has already inaiinxtedf Sllllffillll ”

O.S.N0a.l91 /2000 (now &’ieegu1mu”

Appeal) and 291/04 which would

petitioner ha taken of the” V L’

t.-zrme cf the wry !.l_Ld ” ‘ the rgilidelinea

Iegliinting the as-la:-.;Li=;-Q?m*–g;%+geé>séé;% .. tue
irresistible ooneiuveitrni-that at is than sinfae
the order dv(‘)_c:’li!:i’1l}lt iiiolation of principle
of but, if for any reason,
the -contrary In the terms of the
agieeinenté be decided by a competent

” ‘nol’ bit this Court. while exercising writ

_iEi, jl=At this juncture, it ‘s *”we:”r§r t’ e uv that

_ even.’ tliough the petitioner has argued regarding the non-

of part loads despite there being no prohibition

in the agreement and guidelines; that demand dmfin were

delivered for supply on 7.4.2001 seeking for supply of

1
J2

4KL ofMS and a subsequent demand drafl: dated

was made over’ for supply of Marie; melt’

Depot Manager not only did not ” it A.

to make the supply and dry; V it

petitioner fiat short euppiy fer in the
invoice; tlie. were due to the
stopgied it fit not to enter into this
come to the conclusion that

thegw-rit net the remedy and the petitioner has to

‘1I1,._…tt.I_-.r’ i_ th_- Any observation

_… -4 _ 1 1.1′ 41..- _…..4.lA.l_.__
II

irseffiire the appropriate foruirr not orujr

n to tile a suit but in the suits which are alreacl’ ‘y

relating to certain of those issues.

)2

1’;

16. The other aspect which requires to ” ”

the petitioner has played that K x

(Marketing) in the Ministry of Pgutiteum 11¢’

reconsider the case No ddojuir.-.t_ L’

S.~..:n-.t.9..v§,r (Markefinal, __!|g!i_ni._tt:gt.:of.Pettolettfi1′ have an
ove”” fiii””fir’iS6i’y’ Mmg an
authority underfoe ‘s “‘ii”1i’fit’} oat
to could act as an
in the matter of
the [agreement As such without
there being; normally would not direct

s11(.;h’a1;thoiity_ However, it is made clear that if

., sis (Marketing) Ministry of Petroleum

.14..-.3 pon.=.rer to examine _he issue, though not

the H tiianner of the present enquiry. Therefore,

‘v1;otiaivithsta11di11g the present issue to be decided by a Court.

__5of Civil jurisdiction, it would always be open to the petitioner

to make an appropriate representation to the Additional

I
J2

.

0.

29

Secretary (Marketing) who may choose In 77:51′

same in accordance with law or meat the ‘on, it it

ifit. is permissible to do no in law. “tr ,g.¢:.eo.;g1,t,e..;;,.

the ieepondents would of say” V L’

%$m the A:’.di*..ie-nal

17. In wen yo.2185oj’o5_; has sought ibr
writ of the to provide the
copy of oonnected matelials as
mqtueapted I B to the petition. The second
prayer Petition is to direct the third

Ievejpondentx to entire details of the breaches as well

it -. 1rI…;5n;”‘ll:i.&-..-.’t=;I.i«iz_I’;¢.1,’i13t_.’i1r’tfil1e and violation’ of Marketing oiacm; line

c-s’Ol-4-I ‘veer }II’I.!’;l’\D ‘I11!!! tlag

i|.u.;u I..I-J J.l.I.l1I.l I..I-1.1: V-Imaw 1.11.4-

oi’«ap11_oi11’unent on dealer, the present date so “6

x the to appraise the Ministry of Petroleum and

cell to expose the second Ieapondenfa unlawful

__ acts. I

I)

C
‘I

18. Firstly what is to be noticed is thatffliie

has imp]:-Jaded three respondents:-‘rig? name: iiesttsaaingfit

this Court to issue writ. against ioitfl

i_.p…=si!i–g ..he Corllymation “stating .t_.hotu the V

E1

i: rprefitafl ‘”‘ -“-‘,* “-‘” “””h-V-9*” 9.- J:

‘I lIL’!!\t!\;nIJ’

NF

outset, the issue or” World o

and -tl1e«.1wesp¢3tx§»i_t:ut:sa.. their objocfions to the sum”

stud ‘ hays the details mganding their

” ” ufioflity to “the same since the petitioner is in

V —some of the documents. In so liar as other

.’dooi1men.tsj, is stated that it is in the nature of

intentigatoty. The manner in which the direction is sought

x for of said documents, I am of the view that the same is

[Pa-.is.conmi-.red fior t..e . 1.2- I1 hat ‘.1; a writ thi

.

A… ‘an…

C'”T’i Jt:I’:’:l’i iifit iiutaii?

FF

—

an
in
H
H!
I-

H
1-:

“I

I-

C
II
F

because the .er desires to ave such documents in

ll’

build up uecotds to make a complaint ”

No doubt, in so far as the docuiuenta the it

case of the petitioner and which

te.rrn1’n_at_iorn of dealership agieeiitent, be” V it

in a fiiticn ta —“-*-on the vi.!;”a4-nnwrflh-org:
per the pmceduie rluuuu 1 uuue
while initiating_:th_e in such
cizcumataiios-§£aa,_’ are not produced
by the provisions of the
Evidezice, __ into play and the Court. would
have conaitier in that light and as such the

petitioner “not” prejudiced if the prayer is not

1 u.n.._:. In t-V-:u–.._.—

., in ihj 1v-.1-it-inn.

_ petition,’ it is more in the nature of public inteiest and aa
“anion the same does not need consideration. Even otherwise,

fit’ the petitioner alleges certain inegularitiea in respect of

another dealer, it is always open to the petitioner to make

such complaint. to the Miniatxy with prima V’

the Ministry itself would seek for’-Mich the

Corporation. As such the present of

21. In \.I.r.P.:~.Ia.2;;3m.ig+_i’.:.;e~-ear if
for issue of writ of .te”‘xn11de”t no.4 i.e.,
Additional Secretary Lfieiroieum is we,
Union of iefeif: liiéilnnce cell and CB!

regaitlingv the%’fiflegotio_ip”ea respondent. Noa.l to 3.

‘The; of the petitioner is that the

1eoj3ponqlent.VNogi_}l Vito ate the servants of Bharat Petroleum

‘aliotiki act fairly during the course of their

_,e 5 ” :2 A – – « –

“.”””‘f11’3%v”””§fiv:,”‘I,”au unethical p:’act.:-c-,.. such as cormp. …-…_-.:_-tv,

de1eiic9:icn.Tot’duty, failure in follow the ijiiidecines iaauuu u

_ and the Ministry.

23. It is contended by the petitioner that the

respondents had failed to act fairly and had developed illegal

: ‘*3-Q-_–I

33

acts which are against the norms of the ‘

other serious allegations an: ma¢_’!e~ in til’-oh v’_”_A.’V]’}u_V: K V’

petitioner has produced copies of it

have been made on antiii

By the said reptesentatitms, tho:V”p::ti:ionet.haa:vteqtfieatod the

$11- m fin.-ndent. h_,min.i;and–_nl:@:;3 ‘ “tut Ministry of

.-1″” ‘._’ Z

In-if I1!!-

llg VV ll..I.I I.l In.-

I.

petition, no isl plt3t_i’.1e€:ti that n

P
.1!
.13

5?!’

teptescntnt3’on:sVhavE’ the fourth respondent.

24} $109.1 to 3 have filed Objecfifillfi to

uu avrnln. $1.1′ .. . gzat-ions .-a-.g.-_nst ._.:’:1n and
aiso ‘t1a”.£e.ififiifi:it”i ‘nth r-g”i’ri to the “evil than-iites -*3 wet}

._a’-.é.__c1ii1iittal oiéxziés ainrady pending between the parties. it is

tliot~efot1é~.oontcndori that the prayer sought for by the

.. is not honafide and is made only with the View to

i vengeance.

‘.

WM

5|
4

25. On heating the party-in-person and ‘

counsel for the respondent, I a.m~ of ‘ the u u

allegations made in the petition :”wo1é_iIi’~ ‘tvaléu iflhtet

dispute between the the L’

with mgatti to the___tei=mingfioti of. tlte Vtlealemhip

iitigating. in z:’fi’*”‘t”:”-, th’. (fit;-.=rt.

cannot ise'ueiaa    independent
of the     for the Additional

uinstittnte such enquiry, if the

petitiotier inakea OU.t’a:_ find establishes his bonafides.

125. “Renee; 511′ that can be ondemd. in this petition in to

the petitioner to bring to the lmmvledge of

fourth respondent. Such meptesentation, made, shaii be

_.1_.1_t, once over with ward In the

.

1
1%.

oonsidemd by the fourth usspondcnt. one way V’

accordance with law. –

27. In the result the tzmgwmgs— _

:5
E
‘U
“2’

3..

-F.

yd
. é !’..’>~’
‘ *0
“-5..

I0
mu
“:2
3%
J1
IE

ll) “‘firJ””t_:}1eV.1*rctitioncr tn initiatr.
1111 . >pm%.e¢~.–.a_mgs in the manner stamd

” ‘ Wnmnecsd’ ” inga am initintcd, all

‘- ‘ ‘ 4 .- ‘ ._ 4
cant.-znu 3&3. cf tue H-=’*-es. 9…. hft “-

I. trtarv-(uni

i-HI] their own costs.

Sdf-;§__

K « ‘ kc] bms ‘J-ucige