w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Another v/s T. Natarajan


Company & Directors' Information:- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L23201MH1959GOI011388

Company & Directors' Information:- OIL CORPORATION OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15133UP1952PTC002471

Company & Directors' Information:- O.I.L PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400DL2013PTC255692

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1946PTC000988

    Civil Appeal No. 6748 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33100 of 2015]

    Decided On, 17 July 2018

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

   



Judgment Text

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.589 of 2015 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 10026 of 2013 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was dismissed.

3) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail. The facts are taken from the SLP paper book.

4) The appellants herein were respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the sole respondent herein was the writ petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court out of which this appeal arises.

5) Appellant No.1 is the Government Company called Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the IOC"). The IOC is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of several petroleum products such as petrol, HighSpeed Diesel (HSD), lubricants etc. The IOC has set up several retail outlets all over the country for sale of their products through their retail dealers.

6) On 31.08.1989, the IOC appointed respondent as its retail dealer for sale of petroleum products. A dealership agreement (Annexure P12) was accordingly executed between the IOC and the respondent in this regard.

7) The respondent had to carry on the business as per the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement. The respondent accordingly set up his petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Lakshmi Service Station at GST Road, Kooteripattu Town (Tamil Nadu) and started selling petroleum products of IOC.

8) On 01.08.2008, Deputy Inspector of Labour (Weights & Measures) carried out an inspection of the respondent's petrol pump. It was followed by another inspection carried out by the Sales Officer of the IOC on 02.08.2008. In these two inspections, it was noticed that 'totalizer wires of L&T Line DU in petrol pump model serial No.1578 used at MS 2 pump was found cut'. In other words, in these inspections, "no totalizer seal" was found in place.

9) It is these inspections, which gave rise to issuance of show cause notice by the IOC to the respondent on 27.08.2008. The show cause notice, after setting out the details of the inspections, proceeded that why the dealership agreement of the respondent dated 31.08.1989 be not terminated for the alleged breaches noticed in the inspections. The respondent was called upon to file his reply. The respondent filed his reply.

10) Not satisfied with the reply filed by the respondent, the IOC, vide letter dated 11.03.2009 terminated the respondent's dealership agreement.

11) The respondent felt aggrieved by the termination of his dealership agreement and invoked clause 69 of the dealership agreement which provided for resolution of disputes by the Arbitrator arising in relation to the dealership agreement and he requested the IOC to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for his decision. The IOC acceded to the respondent’s request and accordingly referred the matter relating to termination of his dealership to the sole Arbitrator.

12) The Arbitrator then embarked upon the reference and passed his reasoned award dated 14.10.2011. The operative part of the award reads as under:

'The act of continuing the sales even after the breakage of Totalizer Seal committed by the claimant, in question, calls for stern action. However, it is noted that there was no variation in the quality and quantity. Again, the petitioner has already suffered substantially for more than two (2) years for the closed status of the retail outlets. Therefore, a lenient view may be considered by the respondent, bearing in mind the element of benefit of doubt.

13) The IOC, felt aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, questioned its legality by filing an application (OP No.358 of 2012) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') whereas the respondent filed an interim application No.447/2012 seeking resumption of supply of fuel to him before the High Court. 14) By order dated 23.11.2012, the High Court dismissed the application and upheld the award. The operative part of the order reads as under:

"In the result, the arbitral award dated 14.10.2011 made by the third respondent is confirmed with liberty given to the dealer to approach IOC with request in writing for continuation of distributorship and for supply and sale and with further direction issued to IOC to duly consider such request of the first respondent/dealer within one week from the date of receipt of such written request. The OP filed by the IOC and the application filed by the dealer are accordingly disposed of."

15) The aforesaid order attained finality, as neither of the parties filed any appeal against the aforesaid order.

16) The respondent then on 20.02.2013 filed a representation to the appellant (IOC) requesting them for resumption of the supply of fuel to him pursuant to the directions of the award. By letter dated 13.03.2013, the IOC rejected the representation assigning the reasons for rejection of the respondent's representation.

17) The respondent felt aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, filed writ petition before the Madras High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant (IOC) contested the writ petition and defended their order of rejection of the respondent's representation.

18) By order dated 17.04.2014, the Single Judge (writ Court) dismissed the writ petition finding no merit to the challenge made to the rejection of the respondent's representation and upheld the same as being just and proper calling no interference. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench.

19) By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the respondent’s appeal and while setting aside the order of the Single Judge issued a mandamus to the IOC to restore the respondent's dealership and resume the supply of fuel to his fuel station. The operative part of the order of the Division Bench contained in Para 21 and 22 reads as under:

'21. The application filed by the Corporation to set aside the award has already been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Corporation is now taking advantage of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge while confirming the award to consider the representation. There is absolutely no need to submit a representation and passing orders thereon by the Corporation in view of the conclusiveness reached to the award setting aside the order of termination. Since the supply was stopped only on account of the order of termination of dealership, naturally supplies should resume immediately after the award and upholding the said award by the learned Single Judge. This aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. We are therefore of the view that the appellant must succeed.

22. In the result, the order dated 13 March 2013 on the file of the second respondent is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The first respondent is directed to pass a consequential order pursuant to the award dated 14 October 2011 restoring the dealership of the appellant and resume supplies to the fuel station. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment.'

20) It is against this aforementioned order, the IOC felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

21) Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

22) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order mainly urged three submissions.

23) In the first place, learned senior counsel urged that the well reasoned order passed by the Single Judge (writ Court), which rightly resulted in upholding of the respondent’s termination letter of dealership should have been upheld by the Division Bench. According to learned counsel, there was no case made out for any interference by the Division Bench in the 9 order of the Single Judge, who rightly dismissed the respondent's writ petition.

24) In the second place, learned counsel urged that the approach of the Division Bench in dealing with the issue in question itself was faulty inasmuch as it wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the award dated 14.10.2011 had set aside the termination letter dated 13.03.2013 and restored the respondent's dealership in his favour.

25) Learned counsel pointed out that on proper interpretation of the reasoning and the operative part of the award, it is clear that the Arbitrator recorded a categorical finding against the respondent that breaches alleged by the appellants against the respondent on the basis of inspection were held made out requiring stern action.

26) Learned counsel further pointed out that the award followed by the observations of the Single Judge at best gave liberty to the respondent to file a representation for reconsideration of his case for restoration of his dealership by the IOC but not beyond it. Indeed, according to learned counsel, if the award had been in favour of the respondent, then in such case, there was no need for the Arbitrator and Single Judge to give liberty to the respondent to apply for reconsideration of his case.

27) In the third place, learned counsel urged that once the IOC considered the case of the respondent and found no case to grant him any relief much less the benefit of restoration of his dealership, the issue attained finality between the parties.

28) It was his submission that the Division Bench, in this circumstance, in its writ jurisdiction had no power to sit as an Appellate Court over the decision of the IOC and direct restoration of the respondent's dealership.

29) It is mainly these three submissions, the learned senior counsel elaborated his submissions by referring to various documents on record.

30) In reply, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel, supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order does not call for any interference and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal.

31) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

32) The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division Bench was right in reversing the decision of the Single Judge (writ court). In other words, the question, which arises for consideration is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the letter dated 13.03.2013 of IOC which terminated the respondent's dealership and was, therefore, justified in issuing a mandamus against the IOC to restore the dealership of the respondent herein and resume supply of fuel to his fuel station.

33) In our considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in doing so and this we say for the following reasons.

34) Coming first to the question as to what is the proper interpretation of the award dated 14.10.2011 and the order of the Single Judge which upheld the award and what it actually decide, in our opinion, a plain reading of these orders indicates that the Arbitrator, in clear terms, held against the respondent that he committed breaches of the dealership agreement and as a result of this categorical finding, the Arbitrator, in substance, upheld the letter of termination of dealership calling for stern action against the respondent. Indeed, once the breaches were held made out, the only consequence that ensued from such finding was to uphold the letter of termination of dealership agreement. Since arbitration clause 69 (c) empowers the Arbitrator to pass any order in the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator and so also the Single Judge while upholding the award considered it proper to grant liberty to the respondent to file a representation to the IOC for reconsideration of his case for restoration of his dealership. Such liberty could never be construed to mean that the Arbitrator had either set aside the letter of termination of the respondent's dealership or directed to restore the supply of fuel to the respondent.

35) The respondent, pursuant to the liberty granted, filed his representation to the IOC but the IOC, in their discretion, rejected the same with reasons.

36) In our opinion, reconsideration of the respondent's case as to whether his dealership should be restored or not was an independent cause of action between the parties and the same arose after the award was passed and upheld by the Single Judge. It has, therefore, nothing to do with the award and nor it could be linked with the arbitration proceedings.

37) In our opinion, it was solely within the discretion of the IOC they being the principal to decide as to whether the respondent's dealership should be restored or not and, if so, on what grounds. The IOC considered the case of the respondent and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances appearing in the respondent’s working, came to a conclusion that it was not possible for them to restore his dealership. It was accordingly informed to the respondent vide letter dated 13.03.2013.

38) In our opinion, the writ Court (Single Judge) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the respondent's writ petition and upholding the rejection on the ground that the High Court cannot interfere in the administrative decision of IOC and nor it can substitute its decision by acting as an Appellate Court over such decision in exe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rcise of writ jurisdiction. It is more so when such decision is based on reasons involving no arbitrariness of any nature therein which may call for any interference by the High Court. 39) The Division Bench, in our opinion, committed an error in interpreting the award. The Division Bench proceeded on entirely wrong assumption that since the award was in respondent's favour, the IOC had to simply issue a consequential order in compliance thereof directing the IOC to revive the respondent's dealership and restore the supply of fuel to the respondent. As held supra, this approach of the Division Bench was erroneous and is, therefore, legally unsustainable. 40) In the light of what is discussed above, we are of the considered view that the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge is just and proper, whereas the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench is not proper and hence deserves to be set aside. 41) Learned senior counsel for the respondent then argued that the IOC has issued certain circulars providing therein as to how the cases of terminated dealership of any dealer is to be reconsidered. This submission, in our opinion, has no merit and we do not consider it proper to go into this aspect of the case in the light of what is held above. 42) In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the order of the Single Judge (writ Court) and, in consequence, dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Ltd. Versus Vedanta Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
16-04-2020 M/s. Mahaluxmi & Co., Rep by its Partner K. Jagatheeswaran Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Prince Versus The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Thillainagar Branch, Trichy & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd., (Rep. by its Managing Director Manish Maheswari) & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mandaveli Assessment Circle & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) Versus Union of India Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Senior Area Manager, West Bengal Versus Biswanath Adhikary & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Versus TOYO Engineering Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 RAUS Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indian Bank High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Asset Recovery, Chennai & Others Versus The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 K.R. Selvakumar, Prop: Fishermen Corporative Oil Dealers V/S The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Animal Husbandry Dairy & Fisheries (FS-3) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 K.R. Selvakumar, Prop: Fishermen Corporative Oil Dealers V/S The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Animal Husbandry Dairy & Fisheries (FS-3) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 S. Elango Versus The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Southern Region, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager(RS) & Power Agent, S. Gunasekaran Versus V. Sudhakar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Indian Railways Represented by Southern Railways, Chennai Versus The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
26-02-2020 Sam Sabu & Another Versus The General President, Indian Pentecostal Church of God (IPC), Thiruvalla & Others High Court of Kerala
24-02-2020 Taizuddin Ahmed Versus The Union of Indian Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India New Delhi, & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-02-2020 M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-02-2020 The Indian Golf Union & Others Versus West Bengal Golf Society & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-02-2020 Indian Optometry Federation Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Shanti Bhatt & Others Versus Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 M/s. Gas Links, Chennai & Others Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Bhushan Goyal V/S Indian Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashishkumar Dineshkumar Patel, Proprietor of M/s. New Rajashiri Oil Depot High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-02-2020 Shriya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 Narendra Dejoo Shetty Versus Saumyalata Shyama Shetty Indian Inhabitant & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-2020 Modinasab Indikar Adult Versus Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank, represented by its Chairman and Chief Executive Director & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
14-02-2020 Asim Kumar Pal & Others Versus Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-02-2020 ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha Versus Executive Director Basin Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (India) Ltd. Supreme Court of India
12-02-2020 Aarti Gupta Versus M/s. Jubilant Oil & Gas Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Bank of Baroda & Another Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-02-2020 Indian Bank V/S N. Arumugham and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
10-02-2020 Kantaru Rajeevaru Versus Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija & Others Supreme Court of India
10-02-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Sri Satyanarayana Educational Society and Others. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
07-02-2020 Oil And Natural Gas Corporation V/S Krishan Gopal And Others Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 S. Prasanna Raj V/S The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division) Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Bontha Mohan Rao and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
04-02-2020 The Indian Medical Association, Chhattisgarh & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 Indian EX Bordermen Movement & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 M/s. Indian Commercial Syndicate, Rep. by its Partner R. Natarajan, Coimbatore Versus The Special Committee, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 NR Raghuram & Co, Rep by its Proprietor N. Raghuraman Versus Indian Banks' Association, World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi Versus Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Dr. Santosh Kumar Baishya & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-01-2020 Tribunal on its own motion Suo Motu based on The News item in The New Indian Express, Chennai Versus District Collector, Chengalpattu & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
24-01-2020 South Indian Artistes' Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, T. Nagar Versus The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai, District Registrar (Admin), Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 V.B. Muraleedharan, Proprietor, Amrutha Oil Products, Shoranur V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Office of the Food Safety Commissioner, Kasaragod & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 V.B. Muraleedharan, Proprietor, Amrutha Oil Products, Shoranur V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Office of the Food Safety Commissioner, Kasaragod & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Bajrang Agrotech India Private Limited, Chhattisgarh Versus Rajnandgaon Oil Private Limited, Nagpur (Maharashtra) High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 The Junior Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L & others Versus Bhagwan Oil Mill Through it's Proprietor Bhagwan Yadavrao Pund Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
14-01-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Sant Dasganu Maharaj Shetkari Sangh Akolner, Taluka Nagar & Others Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Indian Oil Corporation, Through its General Manager, Chennai Versus PKS Prashath & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 State of Kerala Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2020 Indian Bank & Others Versus Promila & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager Versus Ujwala Salgonkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-01-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Bharati Khandelwal Rice Mill Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Kolkata
03-01-2020 St. Joseph's Boy's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Coonoor, Nilgiris Versus The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, The Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Indian Bank V/S Agri Gold Projects Ltd. and Others. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
02-01-2020 Oil India Limited, Assam Versus Asian Oil Field Services Limited & Another High Court of Gauhati
01-01-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Sapthagiri Cotton Traders and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
01-01-2020 Raj Engineering Works and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
18-12-2019 Sai Regency Power corporation Private Limited (In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), Hyderabad Rep. By Resolution Professional G. Ramachandran Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 DAV Public School Versus The Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Midnapur Branch & Others Supreme Court of India
17-12-2019 Vivekanandan & Others Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Southern Regional Office, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AP State Office, Hyderabad Versus M/s. N.R.P. Projects Private Ltd., Rep. by its Partner, Hitesh J. Patel High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), Head Load Workers Unit, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Intercontinental Traders, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Hemant Kumar Singhal Versus Indian Overseas Bank & Another High Court of Delhi
09-12-2019 P. Ramesh Versus The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank (Consumer Care), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-12-2019 Indian Association of Pathologists & Microbiologists Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-12-2019 The General Manager, Indian Institute of Emergency Medical Services, Noya Plaza, Kalathippadi, Kottayam Versus Anees Benny, Vaniyakizhakkel veedu, Thodupuzha Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
05-12-2019 Indian Bank & Others Versus Promila & Another Supreme Court of India
28-11-2019 M/s Deep Industries Limited Versus Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
18-11-2019 P. Rabinson Versus The Indian Bank, Represented by Zonal Officer, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Educational Trust, Represented by its Trustee J. Kumaran, Chennai Versus Indian bank, Represented by its Assistant General Manager, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Kantaru Rajeevaru Versus Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 A.K. Vijayalakshmi & Another Versus Indian Bank, Gee Gee Complex & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 Indian Overseas Bank Versus Hotel Natraj Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gauhati
08-11-2019 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager (LPG), Tamil Nadu State Office, Chennai Versus M/s. Fabtech Works & Constructions & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-10-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Association of the Employees of Indian Institute of Mass Communication (Regd.) & Others High Court of Delhi
24-10-2019 Balaji Oil Industries (P) Ltd., Ranipet Versus The Labour Officer-I, Office of the Labour Officer, Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 C. Ponnusamy V/S Union of India, Rep. by the Director General Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-10-2019 Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai Versus Harish Lamba of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 G.S. Subbaraman Versus Indian Bank Rep. by its Executive Director/Appellate Authority Corporate Office, Royapettah, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Five Roads, Salem presented by Assistant General Manager / Constituted Organisation Versus The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Officer, S.J. Plaza, Swarnapuri, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited Registered Office At Yavar Jung Marg, Mumbai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-10-2019 Vijay Kumar Prasad Versus Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., through Shahi Shanker, CMD ONGC, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-10-2019 J. Sekar Versus Indian Overseas Bank, Assets Recovery Management Branch, Rep. by its Authorised Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Bibin Thomas Versus Firm P.J. Homes – a Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its registered office at Thiruvananthapuram – Rep by its Managing Partner –P.J. John & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
01-10-2019 Medium Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta