IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR (-S'o WRIT PETITION Petitioners OP 2000 1. Jitendra Pdl Singh Ahluwalia, S/o Late Sardar Gurdharshan Singh - aged about 29 years, R/o A/16, Housing Board Colony, Bodhghat, Jagdalpur. M.P. 2. Maninder Pal Singh AhluwaUa, S/o Sardar Ajit Singh Ahluwalia, aged 26 years, R/o R/o "A/16, Housing Board Colony, Bodhghat, Jagdalpur. M.P. 3. M/s. Star Diesels, a partnership firm, through partner, Jitendra Pal Singh Ahluwalia, S/o Late Sardar Gurdharshan Stngh aged about 29 years, R/o A/16, Housing Board Colony, Bodhghat, Jagdalpur. M.P. -VE RS U S- spondents [ 3. 6. 7. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, thoygh Managing Director, Registered Office-17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai.-400020. Regional Manager, Hindustan Peta-oleum Corporation Liraited, Regional Office, 2nd Floor Madina Manzii, Jail Road, Raipur. M.P.492001. Executive OfEcer (Sales) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Regionril-Office, IInd Fkior Madina Manzfl, Jail Road, and' Raipur. Ramjiwan Agarwal, S/o Late. Ganpatrai Agarwal, Geedain Road, Jagdalpur M.P. 494 001 Smt. Sushfla HeKwal, Wd/o Late. Girdharilal Agrawal, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur M.P.494 001 Smt. Sudha Shah, C/o Mr. PJfcSaEa, Fariya's Bldg., August Kraati Road, Pedder Rpad, Mumbai. XI-HC-22 75? -Mi'Mici*!, yTi1y'l<»,T««ii'My W.P.Ro. ^750/20&0 ^ fltHCT'aiwi'sh"^""^""^''""""""""""'?!^' 3(1^1 ^T T^iwan^r iF:?W(li?g .6i.4.2a01";<; ¥ •><> Petitioaers l^ MK» S» Respoadsat.a-iI.P.e.Ii, !»VS8wani> Actvocate. ^gt ShEi. Bhishna Kinger.&dvocate. Heard. The petitioaers °uc® this Court t.o - quasfa the by which Uiie agreene&t dt. 12.12.1974 and a fiirm laBowa as l^s: ^agd»l.|iBE^Kaw.i.ag ^sgyen£ip|xs :Smt.«ssfishltayH^j.iwal»;l:a^S3 ehitalia, ^JLjay Chitalia, Chltalia. has been caaoell s^eking a direefej.on frpia intsagned order dt» 19 .7 .2000 dtesel dealership ^:^'^- ~^' - "'--'-' •^laVI^S'^^ ^ ^ ^ etifeerea^ befcweea t.be resppitdents Stte bfe At the outset it may are not some of these sevet* been repordedabove. B'or thlfe. tausiness^ carried oflt of the firm. However on .-/•-.' •'•;•• -1! .: '••:'. petitioners had not beepme firm wl.th consent of tbe r corifcsmplated ia Glaase-22 decided to term.i.nate tfae s petitlonc. :.1 <*iflld4)'t;«(w<dt"4 fsvS <r»i<^K ^fsii^PI 311^1 ^ :Dl.ese.tS»«i'ft*t»»G.<'» •'Dealer ' ^iteeiBi ftsSielS';EtSmj iwaa Agarwal, Saaha&S&a&,:3nrt.» ehandriita Shaatilal Chitalia and Chhuailal fed. stated that. the petitioners partners wliose names faave '^ome tinte ifc appears that (ay the pet.Ltioners la the n.sme c<?aiag to ]<aow that the partaers of tbe said fespandeats«H«p»c.L»as (?f the agEeemeRt, the respondents tiidagreeaent, henee tbis Though, Mr. yaswani h^s urged;straneously that [«iftrt .1. 31;^ %; 'CTWan^ giWfrsfe? 3IT^?I"qSRR ( ^qqsi^af) ehi'Mld'fl-l ''WRff tf fsizttfW^n ^; sipgii Sil?'?! an^T ^OTW ^ii%?( the peti.tioaers are aot la asmuch as they have already^oocrespOHd^tise wlUi the respondenta as; \^i^-^- :- y ......: .^ .-.: • . .....-....._... •••-^-,. ..^•.^ regacds the oonsent to Jja .gtven to tbe peti.fel.oBers E'ecogniziag •them as par^ners o£ tl»e firm i^^tsn •as- the resgBiidents stng^y s&t over the taals^ie. Mr. Ktiiges' r!SpceseRt..lng there nast be expcess c4assat given to tlae w:it petitioaeR, and la al»en<^e of any expcess aonsent ttie petl.tloners have ne» tbey ;aEe partners of tb^ sald firn. j It .l.s also further sateal.tted. tsf vac the pceseBt litigsfei.OB y4e?taln etASBtttea?i^LCfes w.U.i have to be eafcered Anto proper for this Court s4Atlng;ass a in:.i.(b^®sa.c't;;*o entertain this mattec ii4-exsrcl.se of- tbe'?extrai consent ®ffche H»P«C«I«»4 ,:f;'1''l:"^fr.''"'?/.;:.' states tbat-yas daaI^E 4 the H.I>»G«I,<, sutxa.i.fcs that loeus standal. t®claAB ^that K.i.ngec UtcA ia the nafcuE'e. of aad as susfa -tt ? wJ ' ^• jurisd.i.cfc.LQn under. ArtjL^I-e 226 of the CoasS.tt.at.i.aa- of •^..^ :- . :. ladAa* ObvlQaslythe peti4-i^>ne*:'s are aot soiae igf.itt'te seven partaers wtiose ne^es fxgureA la fcbi6 agreement dt. 12.12.74. It is als4 "otwious thafe there 4.^ nolA.ag to show that the petitl<taw» b®®amepartaers ty exgress Clause-32 o£ tbe agreeifaent ^ceesnot ta ahaage;the Cbnstitutioa o£ Dealer ^ira.noE di.ssolve tehe: ^uEttBasa^xj) 11 -nor admit new' laeml^/s^^s ^,pacfert®c/s^afe?a[l.$®t^Kaay^BaEiEa^i?/<j -' ^ ••:•:. to-w.i.thdraw fron- ttae.sat^tn^sh^'w^them&^^'i^aalBtBg^.fctre' ;;;J -t> previaas ^ie®cisea:K^SSa|w2?.i^£iiglfe3¥?l8tte,'Coa®any,»',4PParentiy GKPRJ—FS/31I—1/2001—50,000. ^•i^ t XI-HC-22 •s^ '=riTFn?ra, 1^?taTis, faqii'ay .PoNo. ^^a' aii^iqiT Ri-ii.tti ss^s 'a^Nr'sftg SIltWFRffWHftcI ~^a Bf3*-'' <»•- ffli Tttateur ;<e (Coadt. 16.4.2001) no such exereise was made. case ttie petitloners eanaot aforesaid has been complisd In tbe result in tfae tbat I have narcated atove, this petitlon. la other wo scope ^d tbis Court to inta sin Ute preseBt faets aad thls wrlt petl.tion is COStSo Certified copy. 'todalr *l<<!i'!<i1-l'qTq?if'flfS%t <r<1»K ^'siPOTsn^i 3 - In other words in the pcesent alaim that Claase-32 with. :acts and ciffcumstances X an not iacliaed; to eafceFtaJ.B" :ds in my view tlaece is no •fere with th® jiMpugned order c4t'cumstances. Consequantly, rejec);ecl« I pass BO order^ as- to Sd/- Quef Justtce ['Tti! SIoi ,-^-w N. -"^ 3<C° •q^y^^;^,^