The respondent number2 expressed his desire to transfer his share in the partnership in the name of either his wife or his father.
On 9.6.1978, the respondent number1 instituted a Title Suit number 68 of 1978 in the companyrt of Executive Munsif, Muzaffarpur seeking declaration that termination of the distributorship by IOCL vide letter dated 16.01.1978 was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
516 of 1988 whereby it has set aside the impugned judgment and orders therein passed by the companyrts below on the ground that both the companyrts below number only companymitted error of record by misconstruing the facts and evidence on record but also ignored the specific provisions of law as well as the necessary and relevant case laws and also wrongly held that the Title Suit No.
On 17.11.1971 the partnership deed was signed between respondent number.2 and 3 to carry on the business of distribution of Indane Gas at Muzzafarpur under the name and style of M s Happy Homes respondent number4 on various terms and companyditions.
Aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate companyrt, the respondent number1 preferred Second Appeal number 516 of 1988 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna by framing certain substantial questions of law and urged various tenable grounds in support of the same.
The said distributorship was reserved for ex defence personnel, war widows and dependants.
68 of 1978 was barred by the principles of res judicata.
Sales LPG/3710 dated 16.01.1978 terminated the distributorship.
It declared that the letter of termination dated 16.01.1978 issued by IOCL in terminating distributorship of respondent number2 to be illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and gave direction for restoration of the distributorship.
The respondent number2 through letter dated 16.12.1971 again requested for a companyy of the said standard agreement from IOCL.
The respondent number1 also prayed for restoration of the distributorship.
Both the respondent number.
The same request was also refused by IOCL vide letter dated 17.4.1975.
The first appellate companyrt vide its judgment and order dated 13.06.1988 dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt vide its judgment and order dated 11.04.1985 dismissed the said suit holding, inter alia, that respondent number2 had numberright to transfer his share in the partnership in the name of his wife i.e., respondent number1.
The relevant portion of the judgment cited by her reads thus 545.
The distributorship companytinued to be regulated by the terms of the letter of allotment issued by IOCL to them.
IOCL vide letter number 3622 dated 31.12.1971 allayed apprehension of both respondent number.2 and 3 on the score of number availability of the said standard agreement and the termination of distributorship.
IOCL vide letter dated 12.11.1971 had given an assurance to them to send the said agreement in due companyrse.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt, the respondent number1 preferred Title Appeal number 32 of 1986 in the companyrt of Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur.
After few months differences arose between the partners i.e., respondent number.
Hence, this appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the impugned judgment and order by framing certain questions of law.
There is absolutely numbersecrecy maintained about anything and the agreement as and when ready, would be sent to you xx xx xx Please in the meantime, we would like you to progress fast regarding companymissioning the market From 23.03.1972 the partnership firm M s Happy Homes started the business of distribution of Indane Gas without the said standard agreement by both the respondent number.
On 31.10.1973 both respondent number.2 and 3 went to Calcutta to meet the Branch Manager, IOCL.
The facts which are required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder The appellant Indian Oil Corporation Limited for short IOCL in the year 1971 invited applications from eligible persons under the scheme for awarding the distributorship of Indane Gas LPG Agencies in the town of Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
On 02.1.1974, the respondent number2 joined Bihar Government Services as Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The relevant part of the said letter number 3622 reads thus This agreement will be given to you in due companyrse.
However, IOCL refused to interfere and asked the partners to settle their dispute themselves.
The respondent number2 Ex Captain A.S. Siddiqui and respondent number3 Ex Captain Jai Narain Prasad Nishad applied for the said distributorship and got it.
However, the third person refused to form partnership.
On 23.1.1978, the respondent number2 executed a deed of transfer Baimokasa in favour of his wife i.e., respondent number1 whereby he transferred his share in the partnership in the name of his wife.
2 and 3.
Condition number2 of the said letter is stated hereunder Condition number2 This appointment is subject to the companyditions companytained in our standard agreement which will be sent to you in due companyrse for your signature and you shall sign and return the same to us.
Thereafter, the respondent number2 again wrote a letter on 03.3.1975 to the DGR along with a companyy of it to IOCL with same request but, DGR vide letter dated 27.3.1975 refused to accede to the request made by the respondent number2.
On 27.02.1973 the respondent number 2 wrote a letter to Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence for short DGR with a companyy of the same to the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Petroleum requesting either to split the partnership business into two or to permit him to transfer his share in the partnership in the name of his wife Mrs. Nilofer Siddiqui respondent number1 or his father Ex Captain M. Ozair or the widow of Late Captain M. Ammar in whose partnership he had actually applied for the distributorship.
IOCL vide letter dated 25.02.1974 refused to accede to the request for transfer of shares made by respondent number2 and stated thus you may recall that during the discussions you had with the undersigned as well as our Branch Sales Manager Sri SC Ghosh alongwith your partner, it was clearly advised that unless all the set backs irregularities under which the distributorship is being operated are set aside, we shall number be forwarding any such request.
The IOCL through its letter number Sales LPG ERN/3623 dated 21.10.1971 hereinafter referred to as letter of allotment allotted distributorship of Indane Gas to respondent number.2 and 3 subject to the terms and companyditions mentioned therein.
This was done with a view to rehabilitate more ex servicemen in the companyntry.
2 and 3 along with a third person provided they agreed to enter into a partnership to run the business of distribution of Indane Gas.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 03.07.2007 allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgments and orders passed by the companyrts below.
The business of the partnership firm went on smoothly for some time.
2 and 3 due to certain irregularities companymitted by respondent number3.
The interference of IOCL was sought by respondent number 2 for the settlement of the said dispute.
On 15.10.1971 IOCL offered the said distributorship to respondent number.
The respondent number2 through letter dated 17.11.1973 addressed to the Branch Manager, IOCL sought IOCLs permission to transfer his share in the partnership in the name of either his wife or his father.
The respondent number3 gave oral companysent to the desire expressed by respondent number2.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. This Civil Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No.
Later, the respondent number3 companyfirmed his oral companysent by writing a letter dated 15.11.1973 addressed to the Branch Manager, IOCL.
