Civil Revision Application Nos. 8 and 9 of 2016. Case: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Ramesh and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision Application Nos. 8 and 9 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rohit Joshi, Adv. and For Respondents: A.P. Tatod and M.P. Kariya, Advs. |
| Judges | A.S. Chandurkar, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rules 11, 11(a); Order XII Rule 6; Section 115 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
-
Since notice for final disposal has been issued in both these Civil Revision Applications in which common issues arise, they are being decided by this common order.
-
The Applicant, who is defendant No. 2 in the suits instituted by the Non-applicants - original plaintiffs is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court refusing to dismiss the suits filed by the said non-applicants on the ground that the same are not tenable as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.
-
Brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the original plaintiffs claim to have taken various steps for installation of petroleum outlets on their lands in terms of policy circular dated 14th November, 2002. According to the plaintiffs, despite taking all such necessary steps, the plaintiffs have not been allotted such dealership on the ground that the earlier policy had undergone a change as a result of which, it was the stand of the applicant that the plaintiffs' rights were extinguished. On that basis, the plaintiffs have filed suits for declaration that they had right to receive dealership of their petrol pumps along with prayer for mandatory injunction to allot the same in their favour. Ancillary perpetual injunction was also sought. In these suits, the applicant moved applications for dismissal of the suits on the ground that in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd. Jamal v. Union of India & another [(2014) 1 SCC 201], the plaintiffs had no right to seek allotment of dealership on the basis of the policy circular dated 8th October, 2002 as the same had been suspended on 5th February, 2003. The dismissal of the suit was sought on said ground. The plaintiffs opposed the said applications and by the impugned order, the trial Court refused to accept the stand of the applicants and rejected the applications. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present Revision Applications.
-
Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd. Jamal [supra] that was decided on 8th July, 2013, the plaintiffs had no legal right to any relief, whatsoever, especially the relief sought in the suits. According to him, in absence of any letter of intent being issued to the plaintiffs, they were not entitled for allotment of dealership, as the policy circular dated 8th October, 2002 was no longer in...
To continue reading
Request your trial