1 and 2 do number give numberobjection, the Corporation shall reconstitute the firm waiving the No Objection.
Subsequently another agreement was entered between all the four partners on 3.5.1984 under which the partner number.1 and 2 referred to above demanded 100 litres of petrol per month, to which the partner number.
The said suit was decreed ex parte on 14.1.2004.
3 and 4 filed a civil suit in Civil Suit No.368 of 1995 on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division Kannauj for permanent injunction to restrain partner number.
Partner number4 Roop Rani Tandon expired on 11.6.2011 and a letter was sent by the firm on 22.3.2012 to the Corporation intimating the death of the partner.
1 and 2 further agreed that with effect from the said date the business of the petrol pump in the name of firm will be run by partner number.
The High Court after hearing both sides by impugned judgment dated 30.5.2013 directed the firm namely the writ petitioner, to make payment of amount equivalent to 100 litres of petrol per month from July 1993 to the date of the judgment and on such payment directed partner number.1 and 2 referred to supra to give No Objection Certificate for reconstitution of the firm and further directed the Corporation to take a decision regarding the reconstitution of the firm.
Aggrieved by the same the firm filed Writ Petition No.59450 of 2012 to quash the impugned order dated 31.10.2012 and for direction to restore supply.
2 and 3 herein seeking for decree of permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering in the management and working of the plaintiffs retail outlet and the suit was decree ex parte on 14.1.2004.
In other words the retail outlet in the name of the firm companytinue to be run by partner number.
1 and 2 shall have numberright, share or interest in the running of the business and also in the assets or the liabilities of the firm.
The firm filed Writ Petition No.19606 of 2012 to restore the supply and the High Court after hearing both sides by its order dated 3.9.2012 directed the Corporation to dispose of the representation.
A reading of the agreement dated 3.5.1984 clearly reveals that respondent number.
Thereafter the firm instituted a suit being Civil Suit No.368 of 1995 against Respondent number.
It appears that the said pay order has number been encashed and had expired.
2 and 3 herein namely partner number.1 and 2 referred to supra filed an application to implead themselves as defendants and the said application was dismissed by the trial companyrt and challenging that order a writ petition came to be filed by respondent number.
1 and 2 from interfering in the management and working of the retail outlet.
1 and 2 who are respondent number.
3 and 4 and partner number.
3 and 4 were recognized as partners of the reconstituted firm from that date.
Partner number3 Ramesh Kumar Tandon also died during pendency of the writ petition leaving his widow and son as legal heirs.
In the said suit respondent Nos.
3 and 4 would run the retail outlet in the name of the firm.
The legal heirs impleaded themselves as partners of the firm in the writ petition.
2 and 3 herein towards the value of 100 litres of petrol per month for the period from June 1993 to June 2013.
The Corporation by order dated 31.10.2012 rejected the representation of the firm.
As per the Agreement the outlet was run in the firms name by partner number.3 and 4.
2 and 3 herein have claimed that they have filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and the same is still pending and the decree is in force.
Partner number.
In other words it cannot be said that the original partnership deed companytinued thereafter.
2 and 3 in their letter dated 28.6.2013 shown as Annexure CA 2 to the companynter affidavit of respondent number1 have acknowledged the receipt of the said pay order and have stated that they have kept the said pay order as security and will number encash it till the final decision is taken by the Corporation in respect of reconstitution of the firm.
Respondent No.1 therein viz.
1 and 2 and dispute arose in the year 1993 and partner number.
Challenging the judgment, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has preferred the present appeal.
It was further observed in the order that even after payment is made, if partner number.
The agreement dated 3.5.1984 was also acted upon and it is number in dispute that 100 litres of petrol per month was supplied to respondent number.
We carefully companysidered the rival companytentions of the parties.
The firm M s B.M. Motors was companystituted on 26.6.1973 with four partners and the said firm was running the retail outlet from 12.8.1975 onwards.
Respondent Nos.
They further agreed that they will have neither right in the retail outlet number claim right in the assets or liabilities of the firm and partner number.
It is also relevant to point out that partner number.
Though respondent number.
It is also admitted that all the four partners entered into subsequent agreement dated 3.5.1984 and as per the terms and companyditions of the said agreement partner number.
As agreed upon, partner number.3 and 4 referred above supplied 100 litres of petrol per month to partner number.
The appellant Corporation stopped supply of petrol to the outlet and respondent No.1 herein namely the firm filed another civil suit in Suit No.582 of 1998 against the Corporation to restore supply.
2 and 3 herein have virtually retired from the partnership and their entitlement was only to supply of 100 litres of petrol per month from the said date.
Briefly the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows Respondent No.1 herein, partnership firm was companystituted on 26.6.1973 companysisting of four partners with the following profit sharing ratio Subhash Chandra 1 Brijrani 33 Ramesh Kumar Tandon 33 and Roop Rani Tandon 33 A licence agreement was executed on 12.8.1975 between the said firm and the then M s Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distribution Company of India Ltd. to run a retail outlet and the business was carried on.
The Corporation stopped supply on 30.3.2012 and directed to apply for a temporary dealership.
2 and 3 herein, have filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and the said application is said to be pending.
2 and 3 herein and that also was dismissed.
2 and 3 herein till June 1993.
M s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is the appellant herein.
3 and 4 only for nearly three decades.
NAGAPPAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30.5.2013 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Civil No.59450 of 2012.
1 and 2 namely respondent number.2 and 3 herein would receive 100 litres of petrol per month or its value thereof.
3 and 4 agreed and partner number.
