M/S. Jagroop Oil Stores vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 9 September, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Jagroop Oil Stores vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 9 September, 2008
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.


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.


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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information