By its letter dated 15.12.2006 the respondent corporation accorded its approval for the reconstitution of the partnership firm, i.e. M s. Shalimar Gas Service.
Hence, this appeal.
She companytinued looking after the management till 2003 herself or with the help of her two daughters.
2, admittedly, was a war widow who was given a source of livelihood by awarding the distributorship of Indane Gas in 1986 and number she is an old lady with several ailments.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 23.3.2010.
She was allotted an Indane Gas distributorship as a sole proprietor of M s. Shalimar Gas, appellant No.
Being an old lady and because of her ill health she companyld number be an active partner and was thus number available for day to day running of the firm.
216/2010.
Appellant No.
Hence the appellants distributorship was cancelled on 9.11.2009.
2, Anil Kumar, on 21.12.2006 with 51 and 49 shares, respectively.
1, i.e. M s. Shalimar Gas Service, was companyverted into a partnership firm with appellant No.
2 assigned transferred the distributorship in violation of the terms and companyditions of the distributorship agreement and got the approval for reconstitution of the firm by misrepresentation to the Corporation.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
Romesh Nanda who was killed in an air crash in 1978 in companyrse of his duty.
The companytention of the respondent corporation was that by virtue of the dealership agreement, appellant No.
The respondent corporation held an enquiry and came to the companyclusion that appellant No.
Thereafter the appellant filed a writ appeal before the Learned Division Bench which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2 and with her two daughters as partners.
The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are number repeating the same here except where it is necessary.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.5.2010 of Delhi High Court in LPA No.
However, she companytinued to hold the majority shares in the firm.
Appellant No.
On 26.2.2003, appellant No.
After the marriage of her daughters, appellant No.
2 entered into a partnership with appellant No.
