Madras High Court
S.R.P. Agencies, Indian Oil Dealer ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Southern ... on 7 June, 2002
Author: V.S. Sirpurkar
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar
ORDER V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. The petitioner herein, claiming to be one partnership firm files this petition through its partner Mrs. V. Dhanakotti for a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the first and second respondents to honour the Dealership Agreement dated 29th March 1985 executed in favour of S.R.P Agencies.
2. The case shortly stated is that the 3rd respondent Mani is a physically challenged person. There was a quota for Indian Oil Corporation dealership in favour of such physically challenged persons. It seems that the 3rd respondent who is a close relative of the petitioner's partner Mrs. V. Dhanakotti got the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent was helped and financed by the petitioner alone and in fact, there was an agreement between them whereby the profits were to be shared by the petitioner firm. The petitioner then complains that Indian Oil Corporation has stopped the supply as the relations between the petitioner's partner Mrs. Dhanakotti and the 3rd respondent got soured and the said 3rd respondent started transacting with the help of one Lorry Owners' Association. The petitioner is irked thereby and claims that the petitioner should be restored in the business along with the 3rd respondent.
3. To begin with, the learned counsel very earnestly took me through the Dealership Agreement as also the so-called agreement dated 27.6.1986 purportedly between the petitioner's partner and the 3rd respondent and some other documents and urged that in fact, the 3rd respondent who was a physically challenged person could not have run the whole business, but for the help extended by the petitioner partnership firm and in fact, there was an agreement signed in the name of S.R.P Agencies, which was none else but the petitioner. He therefore contends that the 3rd respondent cannot now throw the petitioner out of the business and in fact, the Dealership Agreement between Indian Oil Corporation and the 3rd respondent is also binding against the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the petitioner.
4. Unfortunately, the petitioner has no legs to stand. It is obvious that the dealership was meant for a physically handicapped person. That is an admitted position. The agreement is seen by me, which is in favour of Sri C.Mani S/o R. Chinnasamy, 35 D, Sekkodi, Padi Post, Palakad. Then, the words appear "M/s. S.R.P Agencies". This does not obviously pertain to a partnership firm, nor is the said S.R.P Agencies described therein as a partnership firm. It is to be seen from the counter filed by Indian Oil Corporation that this dealership was awarded in favour of Mani who again is not a man, but a lady. From the agreement itself, it is seen that the dealer in whose favour the Dealership Agreement is to be finalised cannot take up any partner directly or indirectly for financing or otherwise, unless a specific written consent of the Corporation is obtained. It is again an admitted position that there is no such written consent for taking up this petitioner S.R.P. Agencies partnership firm as a partner.
5. The learned counsel also tries to rely on a so-called agreement dated 27.6.1986. That appears to be a partnership agreement. So far so good. However, unless there was a consent of Indian Oil Corporation, the S.R.P. Agencies, de hors of the 3rd respondent, cannot claim any rights against the Indian Oil corporation. They may file their suit against the 3rd respondent and settle their own rights through the Court agencies and it is reported that such a suit has actually been filed against the 3rd respondent. The question however is, whether the petitioner S.R.P Agencies has any locus standi or has any right to run the bunk and the answer will have to be an emphatic "No", because obviously, there has been no written consent by the Indian Oil Corporation for the so-called partnership if at all it exists in between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may, it is a settled position in law that such dealerships given in favour of physically handicapped or other special categorized persons would entirely be in favour of such reserved categorized persons and unless specifically agreed to by the respondent Corporation, the others cannot claim any right vis-a-vis the said categorized person and to his detriment. It is therefore obvious that the petition has no merits and has to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.