Bharatbhai Prabhudas Parekh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited. on 11 April, 2019
In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Upadhyaya
has pressed into service decision rendered in case of Sushila Kumar Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC
411 and more particularly, para 15 thereof. In the said case before the
Honble Apex Court, the appellant took 14 visit to New Zealand in a
span of 13 years as her only daughter was residing at New Zealand at
the relevant time. According, the Honble Apex Court found and
observed that such absence of short term duration cannot lead to an
inference that the appellant has abandoned the distributorship or that
she will not be able to effectively perform the task of supply of LPG to
the consumers. In case on hand, the factual facts are altogether
different and distinct. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner
appointed power of attorney though his son to operate the bank
account and he is not a signatory of the distributorship agreement and
such appointment of power of attorney holder was without prior
permission and also without any medical evidence of illness of the
petitioner. Secondly, the showroom wherein the distributorship was
run/operated by the petitioner came to be sold out to one Mr.
Satyadevsinh Krushndevsinh Jadeja vide document Nos.4447 and
4448 dated 7.12.2009. The said person was not a signatory of the
distributorship agreement with the respondent nor any permission was
obtained from the respondent corporation. In addition to it, the
petitioner has also introduced one partner, namely Mr. Atulbhai
Himmatlal Shah and thus, converted proprietaryship firm into
partnership firm without prior written approval of the respondent and
thus, committed clear cut violation of the clause Nos. 21, 23(b) and
23(c) of the distributorship agreement.