TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Review Petition on Lack of Standing & Remedy in Civil Court</h1> <h3>Bharatlal Singh Versus Indian Oil Corpoation Ltd., Atul Singh</h3> The review petition was dismissed by the court as the petitioner was not considered a necessary party in the original proceedings and was not directly ... Review petition - error apparent on the face of record or not - Unilateral termination of lease by the Revenue - termination of the lease was only on account of his conviction in the case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This petition is a review petition. The petitioner has been unable to reveal before us any apparent error on the face of record. As regards the question whether he is a person affected because of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2, the answer is that the petitioner herein was never a necessary party because the act of the respondent No. 1 gave only a cause of action to the respondent No. 2, who was an affected party, who approached the Single Judge by way of W.P. No. 5993/2021, which passed the order in favour of the respondent No. 2. It cannot be held that the petitioner was an essential party before the writ Court, as he was in no way concerned or affected by the impugned order which was challenged in the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 - the relief, if any, is available to the petitioner before the civil court where a civil suit is already pending where he is the defendant. Petition dismissed. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
