Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)
M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises & Ors. vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ... on 9 February, 2016 cites

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Amritsar Gas Service And Ors on 19 November, 1990

c. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service, (1991) 1 SCC 533, the Supreme Court has held that a dealership agreement containing a clause entitling either party to terminate the agreement with thirty (30) days notice was determinable in nature, and therefore, in terms of Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a relief of restoration of dealership cannot be sustained. Section 14(1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act states that a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. It was further held that even if the termination of the agreement was illegal, the only relief which could be granted was the award of compensation for the period of notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 319 - J S Verma - Full Document

Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. vs The Stroh Brewery Company on 12 July, 2000

"11. The question that has come up before this Court, therefore, is whether the petitioner can be allowed to continue to run the business in the shop under a determined licence deed and thereby indirectly imposing a contract upon the respondent against his own choice. The question whether termination is legal or illegal is a question which can only be arbitered by the parties before the Arbitrator. What relief could be granted to the petitioner in case it is found that the termination of CS(COMM.) Nos.11/2016 & 12/2016 Page 17 of 20 Licence Agreement was illegal is also a subject matter of an arbitration. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has no right to continue in the shop under a terminated Licence Agreement. On the other hand, it is argued by the petitioner that he shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury. Reliance is also placed by the respondent in Rajasthan Bereweries Ltd. v. The Stroh Brewery Ltd. 2001 (1) RAJ 309 (DEL), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service(1991) 1 SCC 533, Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd. v. TDC, OMP No. 183/2008, decided on 04.04.2008, Provogue (India) Ltd. v.Naveen Kohli (2008) 150 DLT 537, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v.Hotel Imperial (2006) 127 DLT 431, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Sriman Narayan AIR 2002 SC 2598,Chandu Lal v. MCD AIR 1978 Delhi 174, MIC Electronics Ltd. v.MCD 2011 (II) AD (D) 625, and R.P.S. Educational Society (Regd) v. DDA, OMP No. 538/2008, decided on 02.09.2009 [reported as 2009(4) Arb. LR 39 (Del.)]"
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 109 - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Sri Sriman Narayan & Anr on 9 July, 2002

"11. The question that has come up before this Court, therefore, is whether the petitioner can be allowed to continue to run the business in the shop under a determined licence deed and thereby indirectly imposing a contract upon the respondent against his own choice. The question whether termination is legal or illegal is a question which can only be arbitered by the parties before the Arbitrator. What relief could be granted to the petitioner in case it is found that the termination of CS(COMM.) Nos.11/2016 & 12/2016 Page 17 of 20 Licence Agreement was illegal is also a subject matter of an arbitration. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has no right to continue in the shop under a terminated Licence Agreement. On the other hand, it is argued by the petitioner that he shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury. Reliance is also placed by the respondent in Rajasthan Bereweries Ltd. v. The Stroh Brewery Ltd. 2001 (1) RAJ 309 (DEL), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service(1991) 1 SCC 533, Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd. v. TDC, OMP No. 183/2008, decided on 04.04.2008, Provogue (India) Ltd. v.Naveen Kohli (2008) 150 DLT 537, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v.Hotel Imperial (2006) 127 DLT 431, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Sriman Narayan AIR 2002 SC 2598,Chandu Lal v. MCD AIR 1978 Delhi 174, MIC Electronics Ltd. v.MCD 2011 (II) AD (D) 625, and R.P.S. Educational Society (Regd) v. DDA, OMP No. 538/2008, decided on 02.09.2009 [reported as 2009(4) Arb. LR 39 (Del.)]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 133 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

E. Venkatakrishna vs Indian Oil Corporation And Anr. on 17 August, 2000

d. A similar view was espoused by the Supreme Court in E. Venkatakrishna v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., (2000) 7 CS(COMM.) Nos.11/2016 & 12/2016 Page 18 of 20 SCC 764 wherein it was held that "all that the arbitrator could do, if he found the termination of the distributorship was unlawful, was to award damages, as any civil Court would have done in a suit". The appellant therein was appointed as a dealer of the first respondent to distribute liquefied petroleum gas and the dealership agreement therein contained a termination clause that the distributorship could be terminated if the dealer did any act which was prejudicial to the interests of the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

M/S Sai Nath Enterprises & Ors vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ... on 23 December, 2015

5. There is no material on record to show that the said judgment dated 23rd December, 2015 has been challenged by the plaintiffs, as no intimation was given by the plaintiffs during the hearing. As a matter of fact, the abovementioned fresh suits and injunction applications have been filed by the same very plaintiffs on the pretext that the plaintiff-firm was registered during the pendency of the earlier two suits.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - M Singh - Full Document
1