CWP No.5618 of 1988 :1:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CWP No.5618 of 1988
Date of decision: 09 .09.2008.
M/s. Jagroop Oil Stores, Sangrur,
through its proprietor Jagroop Singh
(dead) represented by Legal representatives ... Petitioner.
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ... Respondents.
Present: Ms.RK Wasu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.SC Kapoor, Senior Advocate,with
Mr.Harminderjit Singh,Advocate,for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This petition was filed by M/s.Jagroop Oil Stores, Sangrur,
through Jagroop Singh son of Sardar Bhanga Singh, its sole proprietor.
During the pendency of this petition, Jagroop Singh died and his legal
representatives have been brought on record.
The petitioner challenged the order dated 01.03.1985
(Annexure P-5) whereby the contract between Jagroop Singh and the Indian
Oil Corporation Limited in respect to the supply of kerosene dealership of
the petitioner has been cancelled /terminated. It is stated that the petitioner
was appointed dealer in the year 1981 for being an Ex-serviceman on the
basis of the recommendations of the Director General (Resettlement) on
21.07.1973 for supply of kerosene oil etc. In the year 1981, on the basis of
CWP No.5618 of 1988 :2:
certain allegations of misappropriation, an FIR No.223 dated 12.09.1981
was registered against the petitioner and its licence for sale of the kerosene
oil was cancelled on 08.08.1982. Thereafter the impugned order came to be
passed cancelling the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-
Corporation. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on variety
of grounds.
This petition has been resisted by the respondent-Corporation,
primarily, on two grounds: ( i) that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction
to adjudicate upon the controversy; and (ii) that the agreement between the
parties is terminable and no direction for its performance can be issued.
It is argued by Mr. SC Kapoor, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that even if there is
breach, it involves contractual obligations and no writ lies. In the reply, the
respondents have reproduced Clauses-21 and 27 of the contract entered
into between the parties. Under Clause 27 of the agreement, the parties
agreed for exclusion of jurisdiction of all other Courts except the Courts at
Delhi. It is not in dispute that the dealership was operative in the State of
Punjab. It is settled law that with their consent the parties cannot confer or
take away the territorial jurisdiction of any Court. However, where
jurisdiction of more than one Court is involved, the parties can exclude the
jurisdiction of one of the Courts. Apart from the above, as per Clause 21 of
the agreement, which is not in dispute, the contract is terminable by giving
notice of 30 days in writing. The impugned order is a notice of
termination of the dealership. Thus, in view of Clause-21 of the agreement,
CWP No.5618 of 1988 :3:
no writ can be issued for the enforcement of such a contract.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
09.09.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO