LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-378

SRI DEVI GAS DISTRIBUTORS REP.BY ITS PARTNER Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Decided On March 14, 2012
Sri Devi Gas Distributors Rep.By Its Partner Appellant
V/S
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Rep. By Its Executive Director Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.10447 of 2011 dated 1.11.2011. The appellant herein was granted distributorship under a Memorandum of Agreement dated 28.2.1989 for sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas known as "Indane" in cylinders to household consumers and commercial consumers in the territory of Thuraiyur Town/Municipality. At that time, it was a proprietary concern. It was later converted into a partnership firm with the sister of the proprietrix being inducted as a partner. Admittedly, it was with the prior approval of the Corporation. Thus, fresh agreement was entered into on 18.7.1996 with the partnership firm on the same terms and conditions.

(2.) A perusal of the distributorship agreement shows that under Clause 23 (c), the distributor is prohibited from entering into any arrangement, contract or understanding with any one without prior consent of the Corporation. In the event of any breach of the covenants in the agreement, it is open to the Corporation to terminate the agreement. Clause 27 thus provides for such eventuality. On the termination of agreement, rights and liabilities of respective parties are provided under Clause 31. Any dispute arising under the agreement has to be resolved through arbitration. Clause 37 of the agreement provides for arbitration, a mode of settling the disputes between the parties on matters which are related to the contract or matters which arise in the course of execution of the dealership agreement.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY , the appellant approached this court by way of Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13528 of 2009. By order dated 17.12.2009, this Court, however, closed the Writ Petition on the submissions of the counsels appearing for the petitioner/appellant and respondents that already an order had been passed terminating the distributorship agreement. This Court, held that it would be open to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.