Ibp Company LTD. vs Bal Kishan Mittal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1993 Supreme(SC) 209

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy and G.N. Ray, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 897 of 1993
Decided On: 04.03.1993
IBP Company Ltd. and Anr. Appellants
Vs.
Bal Kishan Mittal Respondent
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.C. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Latha Mathur, Meenakshi Arora and Mala Narain, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.M. Sarin and P.N. Puri, Advs.

Advocates:
Latha Mathur, MALA NARAYAN, MINAKSHI ARORA, P.C.Chidambaram, P.N.PURI, S.M.Sarin

Headnote:
Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction - Civil Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction directing defendants in said suit who are appellants in this appeal to effect that said defendants should not give effect to order contained in letter by which a decision was taken to discontinue supply of kerosene/LDO to said plaintiff/respondent with effect from and not to reduce monthly quota of kerosene to plaintiff and to restore quota of kerosene/LDO - Case of respondent was inter alia that said plaintiff/respondent was appointed by appellant-company M/s IBP Company Ltd - As selling agent of kerosene/LDO at plaintiffs petrol pump by letter situated at Dadri-Loharu Road Charkhi Dadri - Plaintiff contended that after obtaining such agency and consequential licence for selling kerosene/LDO from District Food and Supplies Controller Bhiwani plaintiff had been carrying on said business by getting said licence renewed from time to time and constructing necessary godown and underground storage tank - Regional Manager of M/s Indo Burma Company Ltd by his letter informed plaintiff that as it had been decided as a matter of policy to withdraw/discontinue supply of kerosene/LDO to all petrol pumps selected by them under Multi-purpose Distribution Centre Scheme supply of kerosene/LDO to plaintiff should be discontinued from - Hence plaintiff had to institute said suit for permanent and mandatory injunction so that defendants could not discontinue supply or reduce quota of kerosene being supplied to plaintiff - Such suit was contested by appellants by filing a written statement and it was inter alia contended that Government of India formulated MPDC Scheme in year under point programme with an objective to bring essential commodities like cement cloth medicines kerosene fertilizers etc - Under one roof and within accessible reach of public in backward/rural areas of country at controlled prices - Government of India through Ministry of Petroleum vide its letter directed oil companies to engage and/or bring within fold of MPDC Scheme its retail outlet dealers situated in rural areas - Pursuant to such policy of Government of India and directions received by oil companies appellant-company required plaintiff/respondent to fulfil certain conditions in order to get permission to operate MPDC outlet - Held, Court are fully satisfied that plaintiff/respondent was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO under MPDC Scheme - It is not correct to contend that he was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO not on account of MPDC Scheme but such agency was later on brought under said scheme - Materials on record clearly establish that plaintiff/respondent had been given selling agency and consequential permission to sell kerosene at his aforesaid petrol pump in view of and after introduction of MPDC Scheme - It also appears to us that there has not been any arbitrary or capricious decision in terminating agency of plaintiff/respondent and such decision had been taken because of policy decision of Government of India on cogent reasons and such decision had been applied to all selling agents covered by MPDC Scheme - Under terms of agreement agency was liable to be terminated by giving one months notice and in this case such notice had been given - District Judge had clearly gone wrong in setting aside judgment and decree of trial court and granting reliefs in suit by way of permanent and mandatory injunction and High Court was also wrong in dismissing appeal summarily - It may be mentioned here that our attention has been drawn by Mr Chidambaram that against termination of selling agency of kerosene/LDO under similar circumstances Allahabad High Court dismissed writ petition moved by agent - Similar view has also been taken by High Court of Delhi in dismissing Writ Petition moved against termination of selling agency of kerosene/LDO under similar circumstances - Special leave petition moved against decision of Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court - Appeal Allowed

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued on the special leave petition out of which this appeal arises the respondent has appeared through a counsel and counter-affidavit has been filed. This appeal is directed against the decision dated May 18, 1992 passed by a single Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. No. 228 of 1992 by which the said appeal preferred by the appellants was summarily dismissed at the stage of admission. The said R.S.A. No. 228 of 1992 arose out of a decision passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, on August 26, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1991 whereby the said appeal was allowed and Civil Suit No. 468 of 1985 was decreed by the learned District Judge. The respondent filed the said Civil Suit No. 468 of 1985 for permanent and mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the said suit who are the appellants in this appeal to the effect that the said defendants should not give effect to the order contained in the letter No. 0.17(a), dated April 29, 1986 by which a decision was taken to discontinue the supply of kerosene/LDO to the said plaintiff/respondent with effect from June 1, 1986 and not to reduce the monthly quota of kerosene to the plaintiff and to restore the quota of kerosene/LDO. The case of the respondent was inter alia that the said plaintiff/respondent was appointed by the appellant-company M/s IBP Company Ltd. as the selling agent of kerosene/LDO at the plaintiffs petrol pump by letter dated February 28, 1977 situated at Dadri-Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri. The plaintiff contended that after obtaining such agency and the consequential licence for selling the kerosene/LDO from District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, in 1977, the plaintiff had been carrying on the said business by getting the said licence renewed from time to time and constructing necessary godown and underground storage tank. The Regional Manager of M/s Indo Burma Company Ltd. by his letter dated April 29, 1986 informed the plaintiff that as it had been decided as a matter of policy to withdraw/discontinue the supply of kerosene/LDO to all the petrol pumps selected by them under Multi-purpose Distribution Centre Scheme (MPDC), the supply of kerosene/LDO to the plaintiff should be discontinued from June 1, 1986. Hence, the plaintiff had to institute the said suit for permanent and mandatory injunction so that the defendants could not discontinue supply or reduce the quota of kerosene being supplied to the plaintiff.

3. Such suit was contested by the appellants by filing a written statement and it was inter alia contended that the Government of India formulated the MPDC Scheme in the year 1975 under 20 point programme with an objective to bring essential commodities like cement, cloth, medicines, kerosene, fertilizers etc. under one roof and within accessible reach of the public in backward/rural areas of the country at controlled prices. The Government of India through the Ministry of Petroleum, vide its letter dated January 14, 1976, directed the oil companies to engage and/or bring within the fold of the MPDC Scheme its retail outlet dealers situated in the rural areas. Pursuant to such policy of the Government of India and the directions received by the oil companies, the appellant-company required the plaintiff/respondent to fulfil certain conditions in order to get permission to operate MPDC outlet. The appellant-company wrote letters to the plaintiff/respondent on November 1, 1976 and on January 24, 1977 in respect of implementation of the said MPDC Scheme and finally permitted the said respondent to sell kerosene/LDO from its said Petrol Pump at Dadri-Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri under the MPDC Scheme by letter dated February 18, 1977 and appointed the respondent as the kerosene/LDO agent of the appellant company. Being appointed as an agent, the respondent had obtained the necessary licence for selling kerosene and also for storage of kerosene/LDO. It is the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document