Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Avijit Kar Modak & Anr on 19 April, 2023

19.04.2023
Court No.12
 S/L. No.16
  Sourav/
 Suvayan

                                     FMA 1716 of 2018

                         Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
                                         Vs.
                              Avijit Kar Modak & Anr.

              Mr. Manwendra Singh Yadav
              Ms. Saswati Chatterjee
              Ms. Satabdi Naskar (Kundu)
                                                    ... for the appellants.

              Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv.
              Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala
              Ms. Nibedita Pal
              Mr. Ramesh Dhara
              Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee
              Ms. Sonam Ray
                                            ... for the respondents.

1. Heard Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

2. The short fact of the case is that the father of the respondent was a LPG dealer. His dealership was terminated on ground of his death under Clause 27(b)(i) of the Distributorship (Domestic and Commercial) Agreement, dated 15.06.2004. Before such termination of dealership of the respondent's father, the petitioner had applied for grant of dealership in place of his father. Clause 3.4 of the updated guidelines as on July 29, 2013 issued by the I.O.C.L. under heading "reconstitution of commercial dealership/distributorship" provides for reconstitution 2 of such dealership in favour of the legal heir of a dealer/distributor in case of his death.

3. The Hon'ble Single Judge having relied on the decision cited by the parties and the aforesaid Clause has allowed the writ petition in favour of the respondents. The Oil Company has preferred this appeal.

4. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Oil Company fairly submits that the termination of the dealership of the deceased father has been done only on the ground of his death and no other ground.

5. In view of such fact, we confine the ground of termination of dealership to the death of the respondent's father.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for both the parties, the following questions arise for our consideration:

i) whether a personal contract/agreement entered between the respondent's father and the Oil Company is heritable;
ii) whether the reconstitution of commercial dealership/distributorship under the guidelines dated July 29, 2013 vide Clause 3.4 shall amount to novation of the contract of the deceased dealer; and
iii) whether the beneficial provision in Clause 3.4 of the aforesaid guidelines is applicable to the facts of the present case. 3

7. Learned Counsel for the parties are requested to confine their argument to the aforesaid points or any other ancillary points that may arise in course of argument.

8. Learned Counsel for the parties are directed to file their written notes of submission before the next date after exchange of the same between them along with copies of the decisions.

9. List this matter on April 28, 2023 under the heading "For Hearing".

(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)