Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Aditya Vikram Yadav vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 14 May, 2024 cites

Rahul Yadav & Anr vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 1 July, 2015

In view of the facts as narrated hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was not having the lease in respect of the offered land in terms of clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealership Selection Guidelines, 2023 and as such, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rahul Singh (Supra), he was not eligible for being considered for the allotment/award of the retail dealership outlet. The impugned rejection of the candidature of the applicant/petitioner vide E-mail/order dated 01.03.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the decision of BPCL/respondent no. 3 in rejecting the candidature of the applicant/petitioner needs no interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - D Misra - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Ors. vs Swapnil Singh on 8 September, 2015

In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Swapnil Singh reported in 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1922 has been pleased to observe that, ".........We are unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the respondent. The brochure and the application form clearly require the applicant to have a registered lease deed in her name. What is shown to us is a notarized document and admittedly this document, even though it may have been in existence, was formalised into a lease agreement only on 20th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21st December, 2012. The notarized document, therefore, does not advance the case of the respondent any further. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondent was not eligible on the date of application, i.e., 13th September, 2011. Under the circumstances, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. No costs........."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1