Sir there is a petrol pump in which initially there were two partners A and B; then after working of 20 years new partner C has been inducted into partnership. After five years from now partner B has been retired vide dissolution deed. Now A and C were the working partners in the petrol pump and partner A was dependent on partner C for accommodation and food. WE HAVE INTIMATED THE HPCL TIME TO TIME ABOUT THE CHANGES IN THE PARTNERS. the partner A has been retired from partnership due to medical complications. Then partner C has became proprietor of the pump. for nine years the petroleum company had recognized us verbally as partner and we had deemed permission from the company and they have supplied us petrol and diesel supply as the proprietor. the partner c has been actively participating in company's relation opeations such as outlet inspection, supply receiving, sending intend letter also gone to foriegn tour offered by the company etc. we have submitted reconstitution letter along with draft of 25000 as per company's policy. the company has rejected our application and sent us show cause notice after The death of partner A. The company has stopped our supplies. the capacity new service station as firm, Partner C is proprietor capacity, partner S as personal capacity. As per registered will the local district court had made us Legal representative LR as per registered will of partner A. the production of documents orders also done in our favor. the Hindustan petroleum company has gone to high court and in above stated orders they have taken stay and notice of motion has been ordered. the order are as follows: Mr advocate of HPCL contends that respondent is an interpoler and submits that the petrol pump is lying disused since feburary 2013 and the land beneath petrol pump was taken from the Wakf Board by the corporation. notice of motion returnable on 19/08/2014 to the respondents to show cause why the proceedings before the trial court should not be terminated from want of maintainability of the suit. in the meanwhile, further proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed till further orders. other orders are : defendant HPCL is in revision assailing the order dated 9.10.2013(p-10) passed by the learned civisl judge patiala, where by they have been directed to the produce ghe entire file relating to allotment of dealership M/s new service station, patiala on the application of the plaintiff under order 11 rule 12 cpc. it is alleged that there was a agreement dated 2.2.1983 between the petitioner company and Gurbax Singh (Partner A) and Sheetal Kaur (Partner B) for operating the dealership and in terms of he said agreement the Arbitration proceedings are sought to be initiated by the petroleum company. in the present suit, the petitioners/defendants have taken the stand theat the Gurbax singh (partner a) and Sheetal kaur (partner b) no longer constitute the dealership firm and the applicant surinder kumar (partner c) is a stranger and therefore terminated the dealership. as such the plaintiff dealership through surinder singh (partner c) withoutspecifying any particular document which is relevant to him cannot in law seek the production of the entire ful of the dealership for he has to establish his own case n the basis of the evidence to be adduced by him notic of motion for 19.8.2014 in the meanwhile proceedings before the trail court shall remained stayed. NOW I WANT TO ASK that my suit is maintainable at trial court or not. whether high court accept me legal heir of partner A. whether the high court quash previous stay orders.
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
1) you have to argue that for 9 years HPCL was aware of retirement of B and reconstitution of firm .
2)that cheque of Rs 25,000 was forwarded to HPCL
3) that A had retired due to medical complications . that HPCL continued to supply you petrol and diesel for 9 years
4) you have to contest case on merits in view of facts stated above termination of dealership seems to be an harsh step .
5) it is necessary to go through the case papers to advice further
1. The Court papers are needed to be seen for proper advice,
2. The Company was aware of retirement of 'A' on medical ground, retirement of 'B' & supplied pruducts for 9 long years,
3. Termination of your delearship was not the right step taken by the Company.
you can challenge termination of dealership in court but better would be to get examined papers by personally meeting with a lawyer.
