IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.794 of 2008 ***** Sushma Rani wife of Sri Ajay Kumar, resident of mohalla Pokharia P.S. Town Distt. Begusarai. …. ….. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. General Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. B.B.D.Bagh, Hong Kong House, Opp. Telephone Bhawan, Calkutta-1. 2. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Barauni Dispatch Unit, P.O. I.O.C. Refinery Barauni, Begusarai. 3. Sri Divisional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Exhibition Road, Ashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Post Box no.20, Patna-1. 4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Maurya Lok Complex Dak Bangla Road, Patna through Chief Divisional Manager. 5. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.1, Shakespare Sarni Culcutta-700 071 through its General Manager. 6. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. G-9, Ali Yabur Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Bombay-400 051 through its Chief General Manager. 7. Ajay Kumar son of Sita Ram Singh, resident of village Masadpur P.O. Tilrath Distt. Begusarai. 8. Deputy Manger (Ret) I.O.C. Begusarai, B-61, Barauni Refinery Township Beusarai-85/117. ….. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Avinash, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 16th October, 2008. We heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: - “In my view, a partnership deed is an agreement as between the partners for the adventure in the nature of business to be carried out. It binds the partners inter se - 2 - and brings about a jural relationship inter se. That cannot and does not override the agreement as between the petitioner’s husband and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. That agreement binds the two and is distinct and independent of the partnership. Thus, merely because the partnership deed permitted petitioner to retire at will inter se the partners that may be acted upon but when it comes with regard to interaction with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it is the agreement entered into between Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the partners that would operate which necessitated prior consent before withdrawal. No consent was sought nor any consent granted. Therefore, so far as Indian Oil Corporation Limited is concerned, petitioner’s husband continues to be a partner in the said dealership though as between the partners he stands retired. If this be the situation then in view of the relationship clause, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for the award of dealership. There is yet another reason for not interfering. The Letter of Intent to respondent No 7 was granted in the year 2001 and pursuant thereto, a regular dealership was already set up and being run by the private respondent for last seven years. No order was sought from this Court at any stage to make the said arrangement as between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the said private respondent subject to the orders of the Court. It would be highly inequitous to upset this relationship after almost a decade.” 3. We concur with the view of the Single Judge on both points. 4. Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-