Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (6.90 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Chaudhary Filling Point,Kazipur ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Food & ... on 30 January, 2019

M/S Agarwal Brothers Thru. Prop. Manju ... vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Mumbai & Ors. on 21 November, 2019

It is further submitted by Sri Nirmal Seth, learned Senior Advocate that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Chaudhary Filling Point (supra) has not been challenged by the Corporation before any higher forum/Apex Court, as such, the action on the part of opposite party No. 3, thereby terminating the dealership of the petitioner vide order dated 11.11.2019 is liable to be set-aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.S.Filling Station Indian Oil Corp. ... vs Dispute Resolution Panel C/O I.O.C ... on 31 May, 2022

38. The denial of opportunity of hearing also makes the order as violative of principles of natural justice. Although the order records that despite opportunity, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of hearing, however, the fact remains that during the period from which the dates were fixed for hearing, Covid - 19 Pandemic was prevalent in the country and no reason has been shown as to why the corporation acted in hot haste and closed the right of hearing of the petitioner. Thus, following the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Chaudhary Filling Point (supra) and observing that the impugned order has been passed on a clear misreading of the inspection report, a clear misreading of the report of MIDCO, non-consideration of vital piece of evidence in the form of report of the other OEM Dreser Wayne as well as the report of the Professor of NIT and improper invocation of deeming provision under clause 5.1.4 of MDG, the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure RA - 8) cannot be sustained and is set aside with directions to the respondent - corporation to permit the petitioner to run the retail outlet forthwith subject to the petitioner complying with the other requirements for dispensing the petroleum products as are required under the Act and the Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - P Bhatia - Full Document

M/S Modern Service Station vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited And 5 ... on 18 May, 2023

In this regard counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances in the case of M/s Chaudhary Filing Point, Kazipur Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in M.B Writ No.27043 of 2018  where also the matter relating to tampering of mother board came up before this Court and this Court was of the considered opinion that there was no actionable evidence which can related to tampering being done by the petitioner and according restored the retail outlet dealership  of the petitioner therein.  Relevant paragraph  of the judgment is quoted as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - A Mathur - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Mumbai ... vs R.S Filling Station, Indian Oil ... on 7 September, 2022

16. Shri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel representing the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal did not consider the fact that Pulsar was sent to the Oil Equipment Manufacturer Company i.e. MIDCO Company Ltd. which is the competent authority to give its expert opinion. It has further been argued that the learned Single Judge has also did not take into account the fact that the report of the other Oil Equipment Manufacturer i.e. M/s Dresser Wayne was not considered by the Corporation and the said test result was available to the appellant-Corporation only after issuance of the show cause notice dated 30.08.2018. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that even in the report submitted by M/s Dresser Wayne if an observation was made that there was soldering marks on the pulsar, the same indicated tampering of the equipment. Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment in the case of M/s Chaudhary Filling point, Kazipur and another vs. State of U.P. and others, dated 30.01.2019 is not tenable for the reason that the facts of the said case were different from the facts of the present case as the case of the appellant-Corporation is based on the report given on spot by Oil Equipment Manufacturer during inspection. It has also been argued that the judgment under appeal rendered by the learned Single Judge suffers from manifest error as learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the purport of clause 5.1.4 of the Guidelines-2012 in its true perspective.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1