HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

……

CR No. 06/2019

Reserved on: 18.02.2021

Pronounced on: 29.04.2021

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Ors.

…...Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. M. M. Dar, Advocate

V/s

Ravinder Kapoor

….. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr Rizwan-ul-Zaman, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1.

This civil revision petition is against the Order dated 06.11.2018, passed

by the Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Anantnag, (for short <Trial

Court=) in case titled Ravinder Kapoor v. HPCL and others, whereby

application of petitioners/petitioners, filed under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), has been dismissed.

2.

Succinctly put, facts of the case are that plaintiff 3 respondent herein has

filed a civil suit before the Trial Court, imploring grant of decree for

declaration, declaring him entitled to continue as dealer of petitioner-

Corporation and further entitled to operate retail outlet under the name

and style of M/s R. K. Auto Care at Bijbehara Anantnag; as also declaring

order of termination inconsequential, misplaced, illegal and devoid of

legal consequences and effects; and commanding petitioner-Corporation

to restore suppliers of fossil fuels to the outlet for dispensation to

customers by plaintiff/respondent at retail outlet, with a further direction

to ensure uninterrupted supplies of fossil fuels and other commodities to

plaintiff’s

retail

outlet;

and

restraining

petitioner-Corporation

permanently by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from resorting

to any act which shall cause interference or has a tendency of interference

2

CR No. 06/2019

or cause interference with the operations of fossil fuel dispensation and

other related items by plaintiff/respondent at his allotted outlet situated

at Bijbehara Anantnag.

3.

Defendants 3 petitioners herein moved an application under Order VII

Rule 11 (a) & (d), CPC, before the Trial Court for rejection of plaint,

stating therein that retail outlet dealership was awarded to one Shri

Ravinder Kapoor as sole proprietor to run retail outlet dealership at

Bijbehara, District Anantnag, vide dealership agreement dated

09.09.1983 and in terms thereof Shri Ravinder Kapoor was not

authorized to assign or transfer dealership licence to any third person.

Shri Ravinder Kapoor submitted a reconstitution proposal for induction

of Shri Ravinder Kumar as minority partner with 49% share which was

accepted by petitioner-Corporation in principle with a condition that

outlet which was under a dealer owned category would be converted as

Company Leased category by taking the retail outlet site on lease and, in

this regard, dealership agreement dated 23.10.2003, was executed

between Shri Ravinder Kapoor and Shri Ravider Kumar as partners of

M/s R.K. Auto Care firm. Petitioner-Corporation also stated before the

Trial Court in its application that however, later on it came to know that

Shri Ravinder Kumar, newly inducted partner, was also a partner and

signatory to a dealership agreement of SKO dealership, viz M/s Kathua

Service Station, Kathua dated 01.09.2000. This fact, according to

petitioner-Corporation, was not disclosed by partners at the time of

reconstitution as a person who was already having SKO dealership, could

not have retail outlet dealership in view of multiple dealership norms of

the Corporation and, thus, vide letter dated 04.02.2008, the said

reconstitution was cancelled and the dealership agreement dated

23.10.2003, was also cancelled. The said cancellation of reconstitution

was never challenged by either Shri Ravinder Kapoor or Shri Ravinder

Kumar and, therefore, the said decision of petitioner-Corporation has

already attained finality.

4.

Objections in opposition to application were filed by plaintiff/

respondent.

3

CR No. 06/2019

5.

The Trial Cour