Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on public sector undertaking Bharat Petroleum Corporation for “unnecessarily harassing common citizens of this country”..The Court has also directed that a copy of the judgment be placed before its Board of Directors as well as the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to bring the harassment to their notice, and send across the message that “harassment of the citizens of this country is unacceptable“..The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta in an appeal by Bharat Petroleum against a Trial Court decree, directing it to reconstitute the petrol pump dealership in favour of the respondent’s legal heirs without disturbing their possession with respect to the said petrol pump..The original dealership agreement was executed between Bharat Petroluem and one Shyam Sunder Gupta. Later, Shyam Sunder Gupta and his wife Nirmal Gupta requested for reconstitution of the licensee firm by inducting one GD Sehgal as well, and subsequently a fresh agreement was executed..As per Clause 13(b) of this agreement, on the death or retirement or permanent incapacity of a partner of the licencee firm, Bharat Petroleum could either terminate the agreement at its option or exercise the option of continuing the agreement between the surviving or continuing partners of the licensee firm..Upon the death of GD Sehgal, his legal heir, the respondent made a representation to Bharat Petroleum that the two partners, Shyam Sunder Gupta and Nirmal Gupta had retired from the partnership firm and the partnership business was being carried on in the name of the respondent, the sole surviving partner. Bharat Petroleum, for reasons best known to it, did not take any steps in terms of the letter..After this, another representation was given by the two partners Shyam Sunder Gupta and Nirmal Gupta to allow them to retire from the firm and the petrol pump business to be carried on by the respondent, the sole surviving partner..The other two partners also subsequently died. Bharat Petroleum then, instead of drawing out an agreement in the name of the respondent, appointed the respondent as a ‘Temporary Dealer’. The respondent once again wrote to Bharat Petroleum for grant of dealership agreement to her..The respondent also pleaded that as per the 2008 policy guidelines by Bharat Petroleum, a dealership ought to be reconstituted in case of death of one of the partners, in favour of remaining partners or legal heirs. Pursuant to the policy and Bharat Petroleum’s direction, the respondent also submitted an NOC-cum-affidavit from all other legal heirs of the two deceased partners Shyam Sunder Gupta and Nirmal Gupta. Bharat Petroleum, however, again asked the respondent to submit an NOC within 30 days as the one submitted was not in the prescribed format..Pleading that Bharat Petroleum was acting arbitrarily and that it ought to have acted upon the NOC-cum-affidavit of the legal heirs of the two partners, the respondent filed a civil suit..After an adverse decree, Bharat Petroleum moved the High Court in appeal..Upholding the decree passed by the Trial Court, Justice Mehta stated,.“I do not find any illegality or perversity, whatsoever, in the aforesaid reasoning and conclusions of the trial court, and if at all there is any perversity or illegality, it is in the grossly illegal actions of the appellant/defendant no.1.”.It further recorded,.“It is highly unfortunate that appellant/defendant no. 1 which is a Public Sector Undertaking has been harassing the respondent/plaintiff, since deceased, and thereafter her legal heirs, by not only refusing to grant the dealership agreement to which the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to, and now her legal heir is legally entitled to, and now even in spite of the categorical impugned judgment giving correct reasoning and conclusion, this appeal has been filed.”.The High Court also criticized Bharat Petroleum’s move to re-argue the case through Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, after the arguments in the case were completed. .“Only and only because the appellant/defendant no. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking and is represented by an ASG, in deference I have heard the Ld. ASG, but in my opinion it is an unacceptable practice of a litigant that when after arguments are complete instead of inviting a judgment, an adjournment is taken only for the purpose of taking instructions, but instead thereafter renewed efforts are made to re-argue the matter which would have reached a quietus on 19.11.2018..”.It then went on to impose costs of Rs 1,00,000 on Bharat Petroleum to be paid to the contesting legal heir of the original respondent..“Therefore, while dismissing this appeal with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant/defendant no.1 to the contesting legal heir namely Smt. Annu Sabharwal/respondent no.1(iii) of the original respondent/plaintiff, Smt. Promila Kishore.”.Bharat Petroleum was represented by ASG Aman Lekhi with Advocates Anil Batra, Ujjwal Sinha, Dhruv Gupta, Suchakshu Jain and Piyush Beniwal..The respondent was represented by Advocates Jayant Mudgal and Digvijay Singh..Image taken from here. .Read the judgment:
Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on public sector undertaking Bharat Petroleum Corporation for “unnecessarily harassing common citizens of this country”..The Court has also directed that a copy of the judgment be placed before its Board of Directors as well as the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to bring the harassment to their notice, and send across the message that “harassment of the citizens of this country is unacceptable“..The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta in an appeal by Bharat Petroleum against a Trial Court decree, directing it to reconstitute the petrol pump dealership in favour of the respondent’s legal heirs without disturbing their possession with respect to the said petrol pump..The original dealership agreement was executed between Bharat Petroluem and one Shyam Sunder Gupta. Later, Shyam Sunder Gupta and his wife Nirmal Gupta requested for reconstitution of the licensee firm by inducting one GD Sehgal as well, and subsequently a fresh agreement was executed..As per Clause 13(b) of this agreement, on the death or retirement or permanent incapacity of a partner of the licencee firm, Bharat Petroleum could either terminate the agreement at its option or exercise the option of continuing the agreement between the surviving or continuing partners of the licensee firm..Upon the death of GD Sehgal, his legal heir, the respondent made a representation to Bharat Petroleum that the two partners, Shyam Sunder Gupta and Nirmal Gupta had retired from the partnership firm and the partnership business was being carried on in the name of the respondent, the sole surviving partner. Bharat Petroleum, for reasons best known to it, did not take any steps in terms of the letter..After this, another representation was given by the two partners Shyam Sunder Gupta and Nirmal Gupta to allow them to retire from the firm and the petrol pump business to be carried on by the respondent, the sole surviving partner..The other two partners also subsequently died. Bharat Petroleum then, instead of drawing out an agreement in the name of the respondent, appointed the respondent as a ‘Temporary Dealer’. The respondent once again wrote to Bharat Petroleum for grant of dealership agreement to her..The respondent also pleaded that as per the 2008 policy guidelines by Bharat Petroleum, a dealership ought to be reconstituted in case of death of one of the partners, in favour of remaining partners or legal heirs. Pursuant to the policy and Bharat Petroleum’s direction, the respondent also submitted an NOC-cum-affidavit from all other legal heirs of the two deceased partners Shyam Sunder Gupta and Nirmal Gupta. Bharat Petroleum, however, again asked the respondent to submit an NOC within 30 days as the one submitted was not in the prescribed format..Pleading that Bharat Petroleum was acting arbitrarily and that it ought to have acted upon the NOC-cum-affidavit of the legal heirs of the two partners, the respondent filed a civil suit..After an adverse decree, Bharat Petroleum moved the High Court in appeal..Upholding the decree passed by the Trial Court, Justice Mehta stated,.“I do not find any illegality or perversity, whatsoever, in the aforesaid reasoning and conclusions of the trial court, and if at all there is any perversity or illegality, it is in the grossly illegal actions of the appellant/defendant no.1.”.It further recorded,.“It is highly unfortunate that appellant/defendant no. 1 which is a Public Sector Undertaking has been harassing the respondent/plaintiff, since deceased, and thereafter her legal heirs, by not only refusing to grant the dealership agreement to which the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to, and now her legal heir is legally entitled to, and now even in spite of the categorical impugned judgment giving correct reasoning and conclusion, this appeal has been filed.”.The High Court also criticized Bharat Petroleum’s move to re-argue the case through Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, after the arguments in the case were completed. .“Only and only because the appellant/defendant no. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking and is represented by an ASG, in deference I have heard the Ld. ASG, but in my opinion it is an unacceptable practice of a litigant that when after arguments are complete instead of inviting a judgment, an adjournment is taken only for the purpose of taking instructions, but instead thereafter renewed efforts are made to re-argue the matter which would have reached a quietus on 19.11.2018..”.It then went on to impose costs of Rs 1,00,000 on Bharat Petroleum to be paid to the contesting legal heir of the original respondent..“Therefore, while dismissing this appeal with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant/defendant no.1 to the contesting legal heir namely Smt. Annu Sabharwal/respondent no.1(iii) of the original respondent/plaintiff, Smt. Promila Kishore.”.Bharat Petroleum was represented by ASG Aman Lekhi with Advocates Anil Batra, Ujjwal Sinha, Dhruv Gupta, Suchakshu Jain and Piyush Beniwal..The respondent was represented by Advocates Jayant Mudgal and Digvijay Singh..Image taken from here. .Read the judgment:
