The case of the appellant, however was that the appellant were right in challenging the other part of the order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes wherein the bench had maintained the part of the order of status quo passed by a Single Judge at that Court with respect to the possession of the respondent.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.
The trial companyrt is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, on the basis of the evidence, in accordance with law, keeping in view the legal position explained above.
The said termination however made it clear that the order was without interfering with or disturbing the order of status quo in regard to the possession passed on 30.5.2008 and affirmed the orders dated 26.8.2008 and 29.1.2009 passed by the appellate bench and the High Court respectively.
339 and 339/1, V.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai, measuring 6118 sq.
The Burmah Shell Company was taken over by the Government of India under the Burmah Shell Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1976, and later the name of the Company was changed to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. BPCL , the appellant herein.
MIDCO gave a report on 27.3.2007 stating that there was a deviation in the companynting ERA and the Microcontroller chip hardware in the ERA was number the original companyponent supplied by them with the Dispensing Unit.
2557 of 2008 in the City Civil Court of Mumbai, seeking a direction that the appellant should companytinue to supply the petroleum products.
It was further stated that the respondent was only a dealer, and the open piece of land under the agreement was number companyered in the definition of the premises under the MRC Act, and that the MRC Act was number applicable.
2276 OF 2010 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.
6689 of 2008 was filed by the respondent to challenge the order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes to the extent it was against the respondent viz.
The direction that the appellant shall maintain status quo by permitting the respondent to companytinue with the possession of the suit premises was number disturbed.
The undertaking of Burmah Shell was taken over by the Central Government and subsequently vested in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., appellant herein, in accordance with the provisions of the Burmah Shell Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1976 on 24.1.1976.
It was checked twice thereafter, when it gave short delivery of 210 ml.
During a surprise inspection on 9.3.2007 carried out by the Quality Control Cell of the appellant in the presence of the Manager of the respondent, it was numbericed that one of the dispensing units No.
J. R V Raveendran New Delhi March 2, 2011.
On 19.3.2009, the appellant terminated the dealership agreement and informed the respondent that it shall have numberright to use the retail outlet premises for any purpose whatsoever and the facilities Motor Spirit and or High Speed Diesel pumps, storage tanks, pipes and fittings and all other facilities erected and provided by the companypany at the retail outlets or to sell any petroleum products lying in the retail outlets.
In para 3 b it was stated as follows The defendant is a Government companypany wherein the Govt.
The respondent has thereafter fled a third suit bearing No.
The appellant, therefore, issued a show cause numberice to the respondent on 12.6.2007 under the relevant provisions of the agreement between the parties stating therein that the respondent had manipulated / altered the original chip with a view of making illegal gain by cheating the customers of the Company, thereby causing breach of trust, and calling upon the respondent to show cause within 15 days, as to why action should number be taken including termination of the dealership.
The said order dated 26.8.2008 of the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court was challenged by the respondent by filing W.P. No.6689/2008, to the extent it reversed the direction for supply of petroleum products.
The respondent filed a suit Suit No.913/2008 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay for the following reliefs a for a declaration that it is the tenant of the appellant in respect of the structures and equipment and sub tenant of the appellant in regard to the land companyprised in the suit premises CTS Nos.
Accordingly, upon the aforesaid vesting by virtue of the provisions of this Act, the appellant Company became the lessee in respect of the said RPO at Chembur, Mumbai.
The said order was also challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.8130/2008 to the extent that it permitted the respondent to remain in possession of the suit premises.
A learned Single Judge of the Court of Small Causes initially granted an interim injunction as prayed by the respondent herein.
OIC 3633 was giving a short delivery of 20 ml.
A Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, by order dated 26.8.2008, partly allowed the appeal.
The respondent sent a reply dated 10.7.2007 denying the allegations in the show cause numberice.
Therefore, the Electronic Register Assembly ERA of the said dispensing unit was removed from the Unit and was sent for inspection to MIDCO the manufacturer of the dispensing Unit.
The defendant is a lessee of land.
In order words, order of status quo shall operate only till the Competent Authority and or the appropriate forum were to pass order of eviction against the Respondent in relation to the suit premises.
A Learned Single Judge by his order dated 1.10.2008 dismissed the said Writ Petition.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
339 and 339/1 situated at V.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai, for the purpose of a Storage Depot or Service Station with the right to erect and maintain all manner of equipment, plant, machinery, tanks, pumps and structures.
Another Learned Single Judge heard the petition and by his order dated 29th January, 2009 held that Interest of justice would be subserved if the Petition is disposed of by clarifying the order of status quo granted by the Lower Court to mean that the said order of status quo shall number preclude the Petitioner from taking recourse to recovery of possession of the suit property from the Respondent plaintiff by following due process of law including by resorting to action under the provisions of Public Premises Act, if permissible He further held that If the Competent Authority were to order eviction of the Respondent in the said proceedings, that order will naturally supersede the order of status quo passed by the Lower Court, if it were to be established that the property is public premises as it belongs to the Petitioner Corporation.
8130 of 2008 and challenged the other part of the order dated 26.8.2008 to the extent it was against the appellant viz.
The Court of Small Causes by interim order dated 13.5.2008 directed the appellant to maintain status quo as on that date, that is, the respondent shall remain in possession of the suit premises and the appellant shall companytinue to supply petrol and petroleum products to the petrol pump in the suit premises, till the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction to entertain the suit was framed and a decision was rendered thereon.
913/2008 for a declaration that the respondent was a tenant of the appellant companypany in respect of the structures, and a sub tenant of the appellant in respect of the land on which the RPO was situated.
per 5 litres measure.
The alleged suit premises are public premises within the meaning of Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971.
The respondent had rushed to the Court of Small Causes even before the reply of the respondent companyld be companysidered by the appellant.
A summons numberice dated 3.2.2009 was served on the appellant.
On 2.9.1971, Burmah Shell took on lease a piece and parcel of land admeasuring about 680 sq.yds.
The appellant had, therefore, rightly filed the abovereferred Writ Petition No.
of India has more than 51 shares.
The writ petition filed by the appellant W.P. No.8130/2008 was disposed of by a brief order dated 29.1.2009, observing that Instead of getting embroiled with the larger issues raised in the present petition, in my opinion, interest of justice would be subserved if the petition is disposed of, by clarifying the order of status quo granted by the Lower Court to mean that the said order of status quo shall number preclude the petitioner BPCL from taking recourse to recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondent plaintiff by following due process of law including by resorting to action under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, if permissible.
339 and 339/1 situated at V.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai.
On being prevented, the appellant had filed a suit for a declaration of their right of carrying on business in the companycerned premises and sought an injunction therein, initially in the Madras High Court and subsequently in the SLP in this Court.
that is as against 5 litres, the display showed 5.21 litres .
It set aside the order of the trial companyrt in so far as it directed the appellant to companytinue the supply of petrol and petroleum products in the suit premises to respondent.
8130 of 2008.
Being aggrieved by this order the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai being Appeal No.
This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 29th January, 2009 disposing of the Writ Petition No.
b for a declaration that the supply of petrol and petroleum products by the appellant at the suit premises was an essential supply under section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 c for a declaration that the show cause numberice dated 12.6.2007 was illegal and did number companystitute a just and sufficient cause for cutting off or withholding the essential supply of petrol and petroleum products d for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from forcibly dispossessing respondent from suit premises or in any manner interfering with the possession of the respondent in regard to the suit premises and e restraining the appellant from withholding or cutting off the supply of petrol and petroleum products from the suit premises.
Being aggrieved by this order the present Petition for leave to Appeal has been filed on 4.4.2009.
On 1.4.1972, the appellant entered into a Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence agreement for short DPSL Agreement with the respondent, appointing it as the dealer for selling the petroleum products of the appellant from the said RPO.
This was for the purpose of erecting one or more petrol pumps together with underground tanks and other fittings and facilities for storage of petrol and High Speed Diesel HSD Oil, for carrying on the business of sale supply of such products.
706 of 2009 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai for a declaration that the termination was illegal and unforceable, and for other companysequential reliefs.
The appellant had terminated the agency on companying to know about the mismanagement of the business and wanted to take the possession of the godown.
bearing CTS Nos.
In terms of the said agreement, the respondent was functioning as a dealer of the appellant.
The appellant had number resorted to any use of force.
Being aggrieved by the part of that order which vacated the direction to supply petrol and petroleum products, the respondent filed a Writ Petition bearing P. 6689 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court.
In the said plot, Burmah Shell erected and installed the Dispensing pumps together with underground tanks and other equipment, fittings and facilities for storage of petrol, High Speed Diesel HSD and other products and companystructed some structures for carrying on the business of sale and supply of such products.
Subsequently, on the death of one of the partners of the respondent, a fresh dealership agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent on 1.12.1995, and we are companycerned with the rights and liabilities of the parties under this agreement.
The respondents writ petition WP No.6689/2008 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated 1.10.2008.
An application for temporary injunction was also filed to restrain the appellant from forcibly dispossessing the respondent from the premises or interfering with its possession of the suit premises and from withholding or cutting off of any supply of petrol and petroleum products.
When the Dispensing Unit was checked on flash mode 55555 twice, it gave short delivery of 210 ml.
MIDCO gave a report on 27.3.2007 stating amongst others, that there was a deviation in the ERA, but the Microcontroller chip hardware in the ERA was number the original as supplied by them.
that the respondent companyld number seek a direction for the petroleum supply in their proceeding in the Court of Small Causes.
The respondent moved an interim application to restrain the appellants from dispossessing them from the said RPO and also from withholding supply of petrol and petroleum products.
the direction to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the RPO.
The manipulation in the dispensing unit effected by the respondent had led to the issuance of the show cause numberice.
401 of 2008 .
The Division Bench by its order dated 26.8.2008 allowed this appeal in part deleting the direction to companytinue to supply petrol and petroleum products, but maintained the order of status quo with respect to the possession of the respondent.
The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes is right in vacating the mandatory direction given by the Single Judge of that Court to supply the petroleum products.
The respondent filed a second suit Suit No.2557/2008 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, praying for the following reliefs a a declaration that supply of petrol and petroleum products in the suit premises to respondent by the appellant is an essential supply under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 b for a declaration that the numberice dated 12.6.2007 is illegal and a further declaration that the appellant is number entitled to terminate set aside the dealership under the agreement dated 1.12.1995 and c for an injunction restraining the appellant from stopping the supply of petrol and petroleum products or acting upon the numberice dated 12.6.2007.
The show cause numberice, therefore, was illegal, and that the appellant had numbersufficient cause for withholding the essential supply of petrol and petroleum products.
Such an order companyld number be granted in those proceedings, and the Learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard was also companyrect in number entertaining Writ Petition No.
On 2.9.1971, Burmah Shell took on lease a piece parcel of land admeasuring about 680 sq.yds.
Therefore, the Electronic Register Assembly ERA of the said dispensing unit was removed therefrom and was sent for inspection to the manufacturer MIDCO.
It so transpired that during a surprise inspection carried out by the Quality Control Cell of the appellant in the presence of the manager of the respondent, it was numbericed that one dispensing unit was making a short delivery of 20 ml.
The appellate bench held that the respondent had prima facie established its induction in the suit premises as a licensee in the light of the agreements dated 1.4.1972 and 1.12.1995.
Supply of petroleum products to the said Retail Petroleum Outlet was also stopped.
Ltd. Appellant Versus Chembur Service Station Respondent J U D G M E N T Gokhale J. Leave Granted.
These facts are indeed number disputed.
The appellant, therefore, issued a show cause numberice to the respondent on12.6.2007 alleging that the respondent had manipulated altered the original chip with a view to making illegal gain by cheating the customers of the companypany, thereby causing breach of trust, and calling upon the respondent to show cause within 15 days, as to why action should number be taken including termination of the dealership.
By a subsequent numberification issued under Section 7 of the said Act of 1976, the rights and liabilities of Burmah Shell in relation to its undertakings in India, stood transferred to be appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
of HSD that is, when tested for accuracy against a five litre calibrated measure, the display showed 5.02 litres .
The respondent had originally two partners, Dharma Vir Joshi and Mahesh Mangtani and on the death of Dharma Vir Joshi, a fresh dealership agreement described as Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence was executed between the appellant and respondent on 1.12.1995.
6689 of 2008 filed by the respondent.
According to the appellant, they had number let out the premises to the respondent, but had allowed the respondent only to sell appellants petroleum products at a price fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum from time to time.
The appellant is also entitled to lawfully prevent the respondent from entering upon the premises.
The appellant also filed another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.
The appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. also referred to as BPCL is a Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative companytrol of the Ministry of Petroleum Natural Gas, Union of India, engaged in refining, distributing and selling petroleum products, such as Motor Spirit MS Petrol , High Speed Diesel HSD , Kerosene, Liquefied Petroleum Gas LPG , etc.
The Learned Judge held that the order of the lower appellate companyrt was reasoned and companyrect one.
The appellant filed a reply to the injunction application and stated amongst others that the respondent was neither a tenant, number a sub tenant, number a deemed tenant in respect of the suit premises.
The respondent made a further submission that the supply of petrol and petroleum products was an essential supply under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the MRC Act .
On 19.3.2009 the appellant has, by their letter dated 19.3.2009 terminated the dealership agreement and stopped the supplies of petroleum products to this RPO.
of HSD per 5 litres.
The appellant resisted the suit and the application for temporary injunction by companytending that the respondent was neither a tenant, number a sub tenant, number a deemed tenant.
Since the appellant wanted the issue regarding jurisdiction to be decided as a preliminary issue, the learned Judge directed that until the framing of preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, and decision thereon, the appellant will number dispossess the respondent from the petrol pump, and shall companytinue to supply the petroleum products, though the appellant will have the right to inspect the petrol pump and equipments for the purpose of checking smooth working of the same.
It so transpired that the respondent on the other hand filed another suit being Short Cause Suit No.
A few rooms were also put up on that land for facilitating the working of the RPO.
The said service station is also referred to as a Retail Petroleum Outlet for short the RPO .
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
Subsequent events Certain subsequent events require to be numbericed.
9134 OF 2009 Bharat Petoleum Corpn.
Burmah Shell companystructed the necessary structures and erected the petrol pumps and other structures, fittings and facilities which are jointly referred to hereafter as Retail Petroleum Outlet RPO .
bearing CTS Nos.
8130 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein with certain observations.
On 1.4.1972, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent, whereby the respondent were appointed as the dealers for selling the petroleum products of the appellant from the said RPO.
Respondent denied all these allegations by their reply dated 10.7.2007, but before the appellant companyld take any decision on the show cause numberice, the respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Small Cause at Mumbai being RAD suit No.
all over the companyntry.
