Timeline:

20/05/2019
10.07 AM- reached IOCL premises
10.26 AM- met with Mr. B R Rout sir
10.50 AM- completed all initial formalities, under guidance of Mr. B R Mohanty sir (DJM, HR)
11.03 AM- reported to guide Mr. Ambica Prasad Mishra sir
05.00 PM- left IOCL premises
21/05/2019
10.01 AM- reached IOCL premises
10.12 AM- reported to guide Mr. Ambica Prasad Mishra sir
22/05/2019
10.04 AM- reached IOCL premises
10.13 AM- reported to guide Mr. Ambica Prasad Mishra sir
23/05/2019
10.15 AM- reached IOCL premises
10.20 AM- reported to guide Mr. Ambica Prasad Mishra sir
27/05/2019
10.07 AM- reached IOCL premises
30/05/2019
10.09 AM- reached IOCL premises
31/05/2019
10.17 AM- reached IOCL premises
4/07/2019
11.30 AM- reached IOCL premises
6/07/2019
10.24 AM - reached IOCL premises
11/05/2019
10.14 AM- reached IOCL premises
12/05/2019
10.17 AM- reached IOCL premises
13/05/2019
1 AM- reached IOCL premises
 ASSIGNMENT DONE (as on 20/05/19)

Read two cases: -

1)read one complaint petition

Case name:

Santosh Kumar Sahoo…………………………………………………………….…. complainant

vs

Proprietor, M/s Maa Budhi Indane Gas

Area Manager, IOCL………………………………………………………………opposite parties

Facts: A consumer of IndaneGas has filed a complaint petition before the District Consumer
Forum, Angul seeking compensation for death of his wife due to burn injuries sustained by her in
a LPG accident. He has claimed 6 lakhs as compensation for his death and Rs. 1.5 lakh
compensation for mental agony and Rs. 20,000 for damage to kitchen room costs.

IOCL had issued a subscription voucher alongwith a refill gas cylinder etc. The cooking gas
cylinder was used by the wife of the complainant. On the eventful day, suddenly, pressure pipe
of gas cylinder was burst, and the wife got severely burnt, later succumbed to injuries in SCB
Medical College and hospital, Cuttack. For her treatment, the complainant had already
undergone Rs. 1.5 lakh expenditure. FIR lodged under UD case, subsequently converted to UD
GR case.

After untimely death of wife, the complainant lost sanity of mind for many months. Then, he
claimed compensation for this accidental death of his wife, the claim based under Public
Liability Insurance Policies for Accidents involving LPG (Public Liability Policy for Oil
Industries)

The complaint was filed within limitation period. Moreover, the opposite parties created
deficiency in service by not settling the genuine claim.

2)read one dealership agreement related case

ASSIGNMENT DONE (as on 21st and 22nd )

1) Read the case of IOCL vs M/s Eastern Automobiles

Case name: In the matter of

Plaintiff-

Indian Oil Corporation Limited………………………………………………………petitioner

Defendants-

1. M/s Eastern Automobiles, a firm regd. Under partnership act, 1932

2. Purushottam Khandoi,

3. Bimal Khandoi,

4. Rajkumar Khandoi……………………………………………………….opposite parties

Sl.no. 2 to 4 being partners of defendant no. 1.

Facts of the case: M/s Eastern Automobiles, a B site retail outlet (RO) of IOCL, wanted to
discontinue its dealership. There was a MS/ HSD (B site) retail outlet dealership agreement.
According to Dealership agreement, eastern auto mobiles is a partnership firm of 3 people,
Purushottam Khandoi, Bimal Khandoi, Rajkumar Khandoi. Dealership agreement signed on
03.01.1972, ended after 30 years on 2002. Subsequent to which, IOCL repeatedly sent
communications to Eastern Automobiles to renew their contract. But, dealers were not interested
for the same.

A subsequent renewal of the dealership agreement in 23.06.2008 which was signed was
breached by the defendants. Since, its locking period was 15 years, according to clause 2 of the
agreement. The later was also given a resitement suggestion to which they were not interested to
comply.

The defendants wanted to terminate Eastern Automobiles, so they wrote letters for the same to
IOCL.

In the civil suit filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Jajpur; following reliefs were pleaded by the
petitioner/ the plaintiff: -

1. for unilateral removal of outfits and damage to installations- loss to reputation and status of
the plaintiff

2. under order 39 rule 1 and 2, temporary injunction later modified to perpetual injunction
against changing nature and character of the suit land.

3. 112 lakhs of compensation- for loss in assets, business, image,etc

On behalf of the plaintiff:

Contention of the plaintiff: According to clause 45 of the agreement, defendants have no right
or interest to destroy the equipments. Plaintiff suffered loss in goodwill, due to removal of the
outfits, which is to be compensated.

Also, the defendants removed without consent of the plaintiff. By this unilateral removal, they
breached the agreement. The removed installations cannot be used again. Loss after depreciation-
Rupees. 4,17,739.28. Cost of new installation will be more than 30 lakhs, now.

Agreement was made for locational advantage and marketing potential.

On the issue of termination of RO, contention of plaintiff was that, the signatures of the partners
are not the same presently as in the dealership agreement.

Defendants never renewed their agreement until 2008. Also, did not maintain minimum sales
under clause 10 of the renewal agreement. From, Jan, 2011, defendants stopped lifting of
petroleum products, causing inconvenience to public and loss to IOCL.

On behalf of the defendants: Letter dated 13/04/2019, the extension of NH and construction of
flyover had created obstruction to the otherwise earlier direct access to the RO of Eastern
automobiles. This had gradually reduced the income below 10% from a sale of 5196 KL in
2002/03 to 540 KL in 2010/11.

Contention: According to clause 2 of the dealership agreement, with 3 months prior notice, the
dealer can terminate the agreement which it did.

It informed IOCL repeatedly to take back its properties, which included outfits, etc. IOCL had
failed to recover it even in 120 days (3 months). Forced by this, the dealer had to remove all
machines, pumps, etc and kept in its safe custody.

On the issue of termination of RO, defendants justified it as since the signatures were from 39
years ago, it is indeed not that accurate. Hence, they resubmitted fresh copies of signatures of the
3 original owners which was also attested by their bank.

Objection by opposite parties reg. the jurisdiction as under clause 63 of the agreement to be
Bhubneswar was not allowed.

That the plaintiff had removed the FRP signage (emblem sign) (pole with emblem of IOCL)
from premise of the defendants and delivered it to a filing station in Jajpur.
That the RO property belonged to the defendant no. 3 which was taken on rent. And further, after
the partnership was dissolved, the land went back to the owner and thus, he can use it for any
purpose he thinks fit. IOCL has no right over the land after the outfits were removed.

Trial court order: it was held in Lila bibi and others vs asha bibi and others1, that three
conditions are to be satisfied by the party seeking the injunction namesly,-

1. That he has a prima facie case

2. That balance of convenience leans in his favour
3. That he will sustain irreparable loss, such loss that cannot be compensated with money

According to clause 8 of the agreement, dealer cannot alter or add to the premises or outfit in any
manner whatsoever. Also, no repairs to the same can be done without previous authorisation by
IOCL in writing.

Indeed, the plaintiff has a prima facie case but no irreparable damage has been caused. Since, if
temporary injunction not granted to sub lease, then ultimately plaintiff succeeds in the suit ,
where it is entitled to the damages claimed and thus, no irreparable loss caused to the plaintiff.

Interim application dismissed.

High court order: under order 22 rule 4 CPC, defendants no. 3 was substituted by his 2
daughters after condoning delay of filing the substitution on the ground that the plaintiff had no
knowledge of the demise of defendant no. 3. (Bimal Kumar Khandoi) under section 5 of
limitation act. This subsitutuio set aside abatement under order 22, rule 9.

“where there is substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause
of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Here, the litigant does not gain anything by the
delay, rather runs a risk.”

Learning:

Plaintiff, IOCL, is a govt. company under section 617 of companies act, 1956 wholly owned by
GOI.

In the matter of Maria Morgaria Sequeria Fernandis and others vs Erasmo Jack Sequeria 2, it
was held that- grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit , due care, caution, diligence,
attention must be given by JO and judges.

ASSIGNMENT DONE (ON 23/05/19)

Read two cases-

1
84 (1997) CLT 379
2
2012 SC 731
1)IOC vs Biplab Jena

2)IOC vs Prashant Kumar Pradhan UX

ASSIGNMENT DONE (ON 27/05/19)

Read two cases-

1) IOCL vs Rakesh Kumar Prajapati (LPG case)

2) IOCL vs Consumer Protection Council

ASSIGNMENT DONE (AS ON 30/05/19)

Helped sir in typing his article on “quid solo solo cedict: Indian position” for IOCL magazine.

ASSIGNMENT DONE (31/05/19 to 13/06/19)

Project report related research- reg. product liability in US, India, cases and laws existent etc,
history of product liability, various concepts – strict liability, negligence, warranty claims,
consumer claims, public liability claims, etc