Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) to declare the order of suspension, dated 16.09.2000, in reference No.M42.01 passed by the second respondent as null and void
b) for granting a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men or servants, agents or any one acting on their behalf, or under their direction, from in any manner or in any way acting or initiating any action pursuant to the order of suspension, dated 16.09.2000, in reference No.M42.01 and for costs.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner agency that it is a dealer, dealing in the products of the respondents, since 1962 and the products include Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel (HSD), other lubricants and miscellaneous products. The lubricants are supplied by the respondents in sealed barrels/tins and they are sold in loose by the petitioner agency, by transferring the same to small convenient containers, depending upon the quantity of sale. One of such lubricants bought by the petitioner agency in bulk is 'Glide Gold FC 2T Oil' and Engine Oil (MAK)'. The petitioner agency has been dealing with the respondents products for a very long time and so far there were no irregularities or violations of any rules in respect of the sales of the products supplied by the respondents. However, on 08.08.2000, the officers of the respondent company inspected the petitioner's retail outlet and collected samples of 'Glide Gold FC', a lubricant, in two pet bottles, which are plastic containers meant for Bisleri water . The bottles containing the samples were sealed and signed by the officers of the respondent Company and counter signed by the petitioner's representative. On 02.09.2000, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent as to why suitable action should not be taken against the petitioner agency for selling adulterated lubricants. A detailed explanation was submitted on behalf of the petitioner agency, on 09 .09.2000. However, by an order, dated 16.09.2000, the sales and supplies of all products being done by the petitioner agency was suspended for a period of 30 days, from 15.09.2000 to 15.10.2000. A further representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioner agency, on 1 9.09.2000, requesting the respondents to cancel the order of suspension, dated 16.09.2000. According to the petitioner agency, sales and supplies of lubricants is governed by the Lubricants Control Order 87 and as far as the sampling procedure and testing of samples are concerned, it is governed by the Marketing Discipline Guidelines issued by the oil marketing companies.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner agency that none of the mandatory procedures contained in the Market Guidelines, 1998, have been followed by the respondents for collection and inspection of samples and therefore, the consequential order, dated 16.09 .2000, is patently illegal. Hence, the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner agency had filed I.A.No.16692 of 2000 for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the order of suspension, dated 16.09.2000, so as to enable the petitioner agency to resume sales and supply at their retail outlet, pending disposal of the suit . An order of interim injunction was granted on 09.10.2000, and notice was issued to the respondents returnable by 16.10.2000. Despite service of notice, in compliance with Order 39, Rule.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondents remained absent and they were set ex parte. The interim injunction was made absolute and the petition was allowed on 16.10.2000 . Later, the respondents had filed a petition to setaside the ex parte order in I.A.No.18006 of 2000 and notice was served on the petitioner's counsel 'No Objection' endorsement was made in I.A.No.18006 of 2000, on 23.11.2000, and the petition stood allowed. A notice was received by the petitioner agency, on 10.01.2001, suspending the sales and supply for five days. On verification of the records, it was found that the interim order granted earlier was not extended beyond 2 3.11.2000, as there was no necessity for the same as what was set aside is only the ex parte order and not the order making the interim injunction absolute. The petitioner agency had then filed the application for advancing the hearing in I.A.No.16692 of 2000, on 11.06.200 1. The said I.A. was dismissed as having become infructuous in as much as the order of suspension of sales and supplies was only for a period of 30 days as per the order, dated 16.09.2000. Thereafter, the respondents filed the written statement on 14.09.2001, contending that they have not violated the provisions of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and also they had adopted proper procedure for testing the samples of lubricants obtained from the retail outlet of the petitioner agency.

10. Quoting from the above decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2093 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the suit O.S.No.6352 of 2000.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had denied the allegations of the petitioner as incorrect and unsustainable in law. He had submitted that the sampling procedures were done in accordance with the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and there was nothing wrong in the order passed by the respondents on 16.09.2000, suspending the sales and supplies of all products from the petitioner agency's retail outlet for a period of 30 days commencing from 15.09.20 00 to 15.10.2000. He has further contended that the order had worked itself out and therefore, an I.A. was filed on behalf of the respondents in I.A.No.12194 of 2005 to dismiss the suit O.S.No.6352 of 2000 as infructuous. He has also vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned trial Judge, on 23.09.2005, in I.A.No.12194 of 2005 is perfectly right and within his jurisdiction. The said order was based on the Judgment reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2093, which squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the respondents had also pointed out that what is challenged in the present civil revision petition is only the order made in an interim application, while it is the fact that the suit O.S. No.6352 of 2000 itself was disposed of as infructuous by a Judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2005, which is as follows :-