M/S. SHALIMAR GAS & ORS. versus M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 29-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 244 
A 
MIS. SHAL.,IMAR GAS & ORS. 
.. 
V. 
M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10124 of 2010) 
B 
NOVEMBER 29, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Public Distribution - Allotment of gas agency to war-widow 
as sole proprietor- Later allottee entering into partnership with 
c one person with 51% and 49% shares respectively-
Cancellation of dealership - Held: Cancellation of dealership 
was not correct- Allottee cannot be said to have lost control 
over the partnership - In view of her old age and ill health and 
the fact that the agency was the sole source of her income, 
D humanitarian view should have been taken - Law should take 
more liberal view in case of widows and physically 
handicapped persons. 
Appellant No.2, a war-widow was allotted a gas 
E 
agency as a sole proprietor of appellant No.1. Later, she 
entered into a partnership with appellant No.3 with 51% 
and 49% shares, respectively. Respondent- Corporation 
cancelled the appellant's distributorship on the ground 
that appellant No.2 lost control over the partnership firm 
as she transferred the distributorship in violation of the 
F terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement. 
The writ petition filed by appellant No. 2 challenging the 
order of cancellation was dismissed by the Single Judge 
of the High Court and the order of the single Judge was 
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a writ 
G appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The judgment of the Division Bench as well 
H 
244 
SHALIMAR GAS & ORS. v. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. 245 
& ANR. 
as Single Judge of the High Court cannot be sustained. 
A 
It is not correct to say that appellant No.2 had lost control 
of the partnership firm. It is an admitted fact that appellant 
No.2 still holds 51% shares in the firm. Merely because 
she is an old lady who is a widow, it is quite normal that 
she could not look after the day to day functioning of the 
B 
firm. The respondent-Corporation accorded its approval 
for the reconstitution of the partnership firm. Thereafter, 
there was a formal agreement between appellant No.1 
with appellant Nos. 2 and 3 as partners and respondent 
No.1. It is a fact that the gas agency is the sole source of c 
her livelihood but the respondents have not taken a 
humanitarian view in the matter. The law should take a 
more liberal view in the case of widows, physically 
handicapped people etc. [Paras 9, 11, 12, & 13] [246-G; 247-
B-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
10124 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.5.2010 of the High 
D 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 216 of 2010. 
E 
Sobha Dikshit, Sundeep Srivastava, Braj Kishore Mishra, 
Ujjwal Jha, Aparna Jha, Vikram Patrabkh, Abhishek Yadav for 
the Appellants. 
Abhinav Vasisht, Rajat Navet, Raman Kumar, Pradeep 
F 
Kumar Bakshi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 6.5.2010 of Delhi High Court in LPA 
No. 216/2010. 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
record. 
G 
H 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
4. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned 
judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except 
where it is necessary. 
5. Appellant No. 2 before us, Mrs. Aruna Nanda, is a 
B widow of late Sqn Ldr. Romesh Nanda who was killed in an 
air crash in 1978 in course of his duty. She was allotted an 
lndane Gas distributorship as a sole proprietor of M/s. Shalimar 
Gas, appellant No. 1. She continued looking after the 
management till 2003 herself or with the help of her two 
C daughters. 
6. On 26.2.2003, appellant No. 1, i.e. M/s. Shalimar Gas 
Service, was converted into a partnership firm with appellant 
No. 2 and with her two daughters as partners. After the 
marriage of her daughters, appellant No. 2 entered into a 
D partnership with appellant No. 3, Anil Kumar, on 21.12.2006 with 
51 % and 49% shares, respectively. 
7. The respondent-corporation held an enquiry and came 
to the conclusion that appellant No. 2 assigned/transferred the 
E distributorship in violation of the terms and conditions of the 
distributorship agreement and got the approval for 
reconstitution of the firm by misrepresentation to the 
Corporation. Hence the appellant's distributorship was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.