Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2589
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.Swaminathan, J.
M/s.Kannappan Enterprises - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and ors. - Respondents
WP(MD)No.8343 of 2022 & Cont P(MD)No.1050 of 2024 and SUB A(MD)No.153 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, for Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthi
For the Respondent: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr.Raghuvaran Gopalan for Mr. M.D.Poornachari
Writ petitions against private entities like Reliance Industries Limited are not maintainable; parties must resolve disputes through proper legal channels.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition - Maintainability - Writ petition cannot be filed against an entity like Reliance Industries Limited as established by case law (Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat v. Reliance Industries Limited; R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India) - The court emphasized the necessity to work out rights through legal channels rather than writ petitions. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, operating a petroleum retail outlet, was involved in a dispute with the parents over a partnership agreement and sought to compel a supplier to continue products supply despite alleged violations of partnership terms. Dispute resolution through mediation was initially urged.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the writ petition against the supplier is non-maintainable. Thus, the petitioner must pursue legal rights within the proper legal framework.
Issues: The central issue addressed was the maintainability of a writ petition against Reliance Industries, with significant reliance on precedent established in previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that entities like Reliance BP Mobility Limited cannot be parties to a writ petition as the existing legal framework requires formal dispute resolution processes, which aligns with principles established in higher judiciary precedents.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment and disputes of the partnership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interim orders and mediation suggestion. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. clause 25 compliance under dealership agreement. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
G.R. Swaminathan, J.
The petitioner Thiru.Kannappan, son of the fourth and fifth respondents established a sole proprietary concern in the name and style of “Kannappan Enterprises” and entered into a dealership agreement dated 21.10.2005 with Reliance Industries Ltd for a period of twenty years, ie., upto 21.10.2025 to carry on the business of a petroleum retail outlet. In December 2017, Kannappan Enterprises was converted into a partnership firm. The parents, namely, R4 and R5 were inducted as partners. A new dealership agreement dated 01.04.2018 was entered. According to the petitioner, the parents retired from the firm after receiving a sum of Rs.33.00 lakhs towards full and final settlement. They entered a memorandum of understanding dated 26.04.2021. Thereafter, the firm was reconstituted and two new partners were inducted.
2. Disputes arose subsequently between the petitioner on the one hand and the parents on the other. The third respondent M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited which was supplying petroleum products stopped their supply after March 2022 to the petitioner firm. The third respondent took the stand that their prior consent was not taken before reconstitution of the firm. It is also seen that Thiru.Sekkappan had lodged complaints with the third respondent. In these circumstances, this writ petition for directing M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited to continue to supply petroleum products to the petitioner came to be filed.
3. The petitioner also filed WMP(MD)No.9391 of 2022 seeking interim relief. On 04.07.2022, the following interim order was passed :
“2. The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by Thiru.S.Kannappan. The said Kannappan is none other than the son of R4 & R5. The parents and the son were jointly running the petition mentioned retail outlet. Dispute arose between the parents on the one hand and son on the other. That led to reconstitution of the partnership firm by the son. The supplier namely M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited citing the said dispute refused to supply the products. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. I am of the view that the issue is eminently suitable for resolution through mediation. I therefore request the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Kannan (retired) to endeavor to resolve the dispute between the parties. After discussion with the counsel on either side, the Hon'ble Mediator may fix his fees.
4. Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for R4 & R5 informed the Court that they will move the Hon'ble Mediator along with the order copy. If the petition mentioned retail outlet remains non- functional in the mean while, it is not going to serve anybody's purpose. I indicated that I am inclined to direct the supplier to continue to supply the products to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner will keep accounts.
5. At this stage, Thiru.Raghuvaran Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for R2 & R3 informs that Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties may come in the way. The said clause is as follows :
“25.Supervision of RO: It shall be paramount condition of this agreement that the dealer himself (if he be an individual) or both partners of the dealer firm (if the dealer is a partnership firm consisting of two partners only) or the majority of the partners of the dealer firm (if the dealer is a firm consisting more than two partners) or the majority of the office bearers/elected committee members of the dealer Co-operative society (if the dealer is a co-operative society) or the Managing / whole time directors (if the dealer is a private limited company) as the case may be, shall ordinarily be resident in India and shall take active part in the management and running of the dealership an
