TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ath Motors, Moti Bagh, New Delhi. 3. At this stage, it may be mentioned that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short BPCL ) was not a party to the suit. No relief had been claimed in the suit against BPCL. Dealership agreement with BPCL earlier was under the joint signature of Hari Chand and one Sanjeev Behl, on the basis of which license to run the Petrol Pump had been granted by BPCL. Sanjeev Bahl had resigned from partnership and consequently BPCL had appointed Hari Chand as the sole licensee. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, we need not state inter se dispute between Shakuntla Devi and Hari Chand except by making a reference to the joint statement of the plaintiff and defendants recorded in Court, which ultimately led to the passing of the two orders. 4. The defendants were served in the suit. On the interim applications also notices were issued. No written statement was filed by the defendants. On 15.5.1998 an application (IA.435/98) was filed by the defendants under Section 8 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for stay of the proceedings in the suit and for reference of all disputes for Arbitration as per the arbitration agreement. A few orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2, without prejudice to our rights and contentions in the suit as well as other legal proceedings pending between us in any other court in respect of the business of the petrol pump by the name of M/s. Raj Nath Motors at Shanti Path, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, undertake as follows:- 1. The entire money transactions including receipt of cash, deposit of cash in the bank account as well as transactions carried out through the bank by cheques or bank drafts shall be completely handled by defendant no.1. The plaintiff shall not be responsible for any civil or criminal liability arising out of these transactions carried out by defendant no.1 who alone shall be responsible and liable for the same. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) shall not treat this as a violation of any of its terms and conditions against the plaintiff. For this purpose, defendant no.1 can remain present at the petrol pump at any time. Defendant no.1 or any authorised representative of defendant no.1 shall properly record the entire collections and expenses and shall maintain the accounts properly. The said account shall be open to inspection by the plaintiff or his authorised representative at any time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed in future by BPCL. The plaintiff shall be free to visit the suit premises at his own will and proper respect and treatment will be given to him by the defendants employee/contractors. 7. Notwithstanding that the plaintiff shall not interfere with the day-to-day running of the business as stated above the plaintiff shall be deemed to remain in legal possession of the petrol pump and is fully empowered to take any steps that are necessary for fulfillling the conditions imposed upon him by BPCL in terms of DPSL agreement or any other instructions or regulations that may be imposed in future by the BPCL. 8. The present office space in the front side of the petrol pump shall remain in legal and constructive possession of the plaintiff. 9. The arrangement shall not be treated by the BPCL as a violation of andy of the terms and conditions of DPSL agreement or any other conditions imposed by it. In case there are any malpractices committed by the defendants as defined in the DPSL agreement or in any other conditions imposed by BPCL or any other concerned authority, the defendant no.1 shall be exclusively liable for the same whether civil or criminal. BPCL shall not take a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary, 2000. However, in spite of specific directions given to Bharat Petroleum Corporation to supply all petroleum products, the supply of the same has been stopped since 12th January, 2000. It has been contended that the said conduct of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and the parties will move a separate contempt petition in this regard. Let notice of this application be also issued to Bharat Petroleum Corporation, returnable on 10th March, 2000. In the meanwhile, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is directed to continue supply of the petroleum products as was done in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 10th January, 2000, dusty. 8. Needless to add and as noticed above. BPCL was neither a party to the suit nor an notice on any application had been issued to or served upon BPCL before passing the above order or orders passed earlier. Only as an interim measure while issuing notice to BPCL on the above application returnable on 10.3.2000, it was directed that BPCL shall continue to supply petroleum products as was being done in pursuance to the order passed on 10.1.2000. 9. On coming to kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as termed appropriate as well as in the interest of justice to issue notice to the BPCL. However, it was ordered that in the meanwhile BPCL will continue the supply of petroleum products. Today again I have been informed that in spite (SIC)of the order passed on 1.3.2000 supply has not been started by BPCL, although BPCL was served with the copy of the order dated 11.3.2000. It has been contended by plaintiff and defendant no.2 that against the order passed on 1.3.2000, BPCL has preferred an FAO(OS) No.77/2000. No stay has been granted by the appellate court. Mr.Sirivastava has contended that the orders dated 10.1.2000 and 11.1.2000 were not brought to the notice of BPCL till 9.2.2000. However, the case of BPCL is not that the order dated 1.3.2000 has not been served on the BPCL. What has been stated before me by Mr.Sirivastava is that the said order is unimplementable. It is further stated that BPCL cannot comply with the order as they do not recognise the defendants as the dealer. This conduct of the BPCL is in gross violation of the order of this Court. The order dated 10.1.2000 or 1.3.2000 nowhere state that defendant is the dealer or not. That order was passed keeping in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon and had not been acted upon, Hari Chand Sachdeva in the said application has prayed the Court that the order dated 10.1.200 be recalled/modified so as to restore the position as it existed prior thereto, namely, that of 20.5.1988 and to absolve the plaintiff of the undertaking given to the Court on 10.1.2000. Notice of this application was issued to the defendants by learned Single Judge, but till date the defendants despite service have not filed any reply to the said application. 14. While hearing the appeal, with consent of the parties, we also heard them on the application moved by Hari Chand Sachdeva. 15. Needless to repeal again the appellant BPCL was not a party to the suit. In the suit, the dispute was inter se the plaintiff and the defendants about their partnership and its accounts. Supply of petrol and petroleum products by BPCL was not the subject matter of the suit. The prayers made by the defendants in their application (IA 1901/2000) after, compromise is alleged to have been arrived at amongst the plaintiff and the defendants were out side the scope of the suit. BPCL had not notice of the said application. By an order, which was an ex parte order against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
