SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 493

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s, Sathyanarayana Service Station & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3533 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5698 of 2021)
With
M.P. Parvathi – Appellant
VERSUS
M/s. Sathyanarana Service Station And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3534 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5591 of 2021)
Decided On : 09-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, Adv. Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Harsh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vinayaka S Pandit, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Rakhi M, Adv.

The court upheld the validity of clause (3) of the dealership agreement, which allowed either party to terminate the agreement by giving three months notice in writing. The court emphasized that the acceptance of a notice of termination is not necessary for its effectiveness under clause (3).

Headnote:TERMINATION - Dealership Agreement - Clause (3) of the agreement provides for termination of the agreement by either party by giving three months notice in writing. The first respondent invoked clause (3) and sent a notice of withdrawal from the dealership. The second appellant accepted the notice and requested the first respondent to continue operation until alternative arrangements were made. The arbitrator found that there was acceptance of the notice, but the High Court set aside the award and directed restoration of the dealership to the first respondent. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the arbitrator was plausible and could not be characterized as perverse. The High Court erred in interfering with the award and modifying it beyond its authority. The appeals were allowed, and the award was restored.

Fact of the Case:

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., along with its officers, entered into a petrol/hsd pump dealer agreement with Smt. M.P. Parvati, referred to as new dealer. The agreement contained a clause (3) which allowed either party to terminate the agreement by giving three months notice in writing.

Finding of the Court:

The Arbitrator found that there was acceptance of Smt. M.P. Parvati's notice of withdrawal from the dealership, while the High Court set aside this finding and directed restoration of the dealership to Smt. M.P. Parvati.

Issues:

Whether there was acceptance of Smt. M.P. Parvati's notice of withdrawal from the dealership? Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the arbitration award?

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the arbitrator, finding acceptance of Smt. M.P. Parvati's notice, was plausible and could not be considered perverse. The High Court exceeded its authority by interfering with and modifying an arbitration award.

Final Decision:

The appeals were allowed, and the arbitration award was restored. The High Court's judgment was set aside.

JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 5698 OF 2021, the appellants are the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “IOC”, for short), the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the first appellant, Bangalore and the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the Mangalore Division. The second respondent in the said appeal is one Smt. M.P. Parvati, referred to as new dealer, who is the appellant in the other appeal, namely, civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 5591 OF 2021.

THE FACTS

3. On 31.10.2003, IOC entered into petrol/hsd pump dealer agreement with the first respondent. Clause (3) of the agreement read as follows:

    “(3) The Agreement shall remain in force for fifteen year from day of 13th Oct 2003 and continue thereafter for successive periods of five year each until determined by either party by giving three months notice in writing to the other of its intention to termination this agreement and upon the expiration of any such notice this Agreement and the Licence granted as aforesaid shall stand cancelled and revoked but without prejudice to such termination provided that nothing contained in this clause shall to the rights of either party against the other in respect of any matter or thing antecedent to such termination Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall to such prejudice the rights of the Corporation to terminate this Agreement earlier on the happening of the events mentioned in Clause 56 of this Agreement.”

4. On 25.09.2006, the first respondent addressed the following communication to the second appellant:

    “Date: - 25-09-2006

    To,

    The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager

    Indian Oil Corporation Limited

    Marketing Division, Bangalore Divisional Office,

    Indian Oil Bhavan # 29,

    P. Kalinga Rao Road, (Mission Road)

    Bangalore - 560027.

    Dear sir,

    Sub : With drawl from R.O. Dealership Ref: Your Letter No. BD0/242 dated 23rd Oct, 2003

    With reference to the above subject we are very grateful to you and IOC family members for giving us support and cooperation for all these years for running the R.O.

    I would like to bring to your kind notice, that we have shifted to Bangalore for our children's education. Hence, we are not able to look after the R.O.

    Hence, kindly withdraw from R.O. dealership and appoint new R.O. dealers before three months as per our agreement Dt: 31st Oct. 2003.

    Hope you will consider our humble request and do the needful.

    Thanking you,

    Yours faithfully,

    For SRI SATYANARAYANA SWAMY SERVICE STATION

    (P.S. SURESH)     (JYOTI SURESH)

        Partner  Partner

    CC To : The Sales Officer Mysore

    //TRUE TYPED COPY//”

5. It is not in dispute that on 30.09.2006 there was a physical interaction in the course of which IOC insisted that the request of the first respondent be notarised. There is also no dispute that a notarised version of letter dated 25.09.2006 was received on 16.11.2006. It was apparently notarised earlier on 3.10.2006. A reply was sent to the same dated 22.11.2006 by the second appellant. It reads as follows:

    “November 22, 2006

    Regd. Post A.O.

    Shri. P. S. Suresh & Smt Jyothi Suresh Partners

    Sri. Sathyanarayanaswamy Service Station Mysore -Bantwal Road

    Periyapatna 5 71107

    MYSORE DISTRICT

    Dear sir,

    SUBJECT : Resignation from Dealership

    This has reference to the notarized letter dated 3rd October 2006 received by our office on 16th November 2006 informing us of your intention to retire from our retail outlet dealership.

    This notarized letter sent by you, with reference to the recognition letter sent by us to you vide reference BDO : 242 dated 23. 10.2003 along with the dealership agreement recognizing both of you as the dealers of our 'A' site retail outlet at periyapatna, run by you under the name and style M/s. Sathyanarayanaswamy Service Station.

    As stated in your letter, we have taken note of your intention to resign from our dealership. We request you to continue operation till we make an alternative arrangement.

    We thank you for your association with our organiza


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top