Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (2) TMI 1282 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues involved:
Review of orders dated 31.08.2021 and 20.07.2021 in W.A. No. 767/2021 and W.P. No. 5339/2021, respectively.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a review petition against the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 20.07.2021 in W.A. No. 767/2021 and W.P. No. 5339/2021, respectively. The respondent No. 1, Indian Oil Corporation, issued a show cause notice to respondent No. 2 regarding the termination of the dealership due to a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The termination was challenged by respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 5339/2021, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent No. 1 appealed this decision in W.A. No. 767/2021, which was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of the land and argued that he should have been a necessary party as he had terminated the lease. However, it was established that the cause of action was between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, and any remedy for the petitioner lies in the civil court as he is a defendant in a civil suit for injunction.

2. The petitioner contended that the termination of the lease by him led to a civil suit for injunction by respondent No. 2, who obtained a temporary injunction. The court emphasized that any relief for the petitioner should be sought in the civil court, where he is involved as a defendant. Additionally, the petitioner referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding the distinction between petitions under Article 32, review petitions, and recall petitions. The Supreme Court clarified that a review petition examines errors on the face of the record, while a recall petition simply withdraws an order without a hearing. In this case, as it was a review petition, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any apparent error on the record. The court concluded that the petitioner was not an essential party in the original writ petition and was not affected by the impugned order challenged by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2.

3. The court dismissed the review petition, stating that the petitioner was not a necessary party in the original proceedings and was not affected by the impugned order. The court reiterated that the petitioner's recourse, if any, lies in the civil court where he is already involved in a pending civil suit as a defendant. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed, and the relief, if sought by the petitioner, should be pursued in the civil court where he is a party.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates