S.R.P. AGENCIES, INDIAN OIL DEALER REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MRS. V. DHANAKOTTI, DHARMAPURI TALUK AND DISTRICT Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION SOUTHERN REGION, MADRAS REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, claiming to be one partnership firm files this petition through its partner Mrs. V. Dhanakotti for a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the first and second respondents to honour the Dealership Agreement dated 29th March 1985 executed in favour of S.R.P Agencies.

(2.) The case shortly stated is that the 3rd respondent Mani is a physically challenged person. There was a quota for Indian Oil Corporation dealership in favour of such physically challenged persons. It seems that the 3rd respondent who is a close relative of the petitioner's partner Mrs. V. Dhanakotti got the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent was helped and financed by the petitioner alone and in fact, there was an agreement between them whereby the profits were to be shared by the petitioner firm. The petitioner then complains that Indian Oil Corporation has stopped the supply as the relations between the petitioner's partner Mrs. Dhanakotti and the 3rd respondent got soured and the said 3rd respondent started transacting with the help of one Lorry Owners' Association. The petitioner is irked thereby and claims that the petitioner should be restored in the business along with the 3rd respondent.

(3.) To begin with, the learned counsel very earnestly took me through the Dealership Agreement as also the so -called agreement dated 27.6.1986 purportedly between the petitioner's partner and the 3rd respondent and some other documents and urged that in fact, the 3rd respondent who was a physically challenged person could not have run the whole business, but for the help extended by the petitioner partnership firm and in fact, there was an agreement signed in the name of S.R.P Agencies, which was none else but the petitioner. He therefore contends that the 3rd respondent cannot now throw the petitioner out of the business and in fact, the Dealership Agreement between Indian Oil Corporation and the 3rd respondent is also binding against the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the petitioner.