- (1.) The appellants had been appointed as a retail outlet dealer for the sale of motor spirit, high-speed diesel and other products by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent Company more than 70 years back. The appellants entered into a fresh agreement with the respondent Company on 12.07.1996. The licence agreement was entered into between the parties by which the respondent Company granted a licence to the appellants to enter upon and use the establishment at Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, for high-speed diesel and other petroleum products.
(2.) On 4.02.1998/5.02.1998, allegedly the respondent Company received information from the Crime Branch of Mumbai Police, in relation to the alleged commission of irregularities at the outlet of the appellants. A team of officers of the Company visited the outlet and carried out an inspection which revealed certain irregularities. The most serious of the said irregularities was that a tanker lorry bearing Registration No. MH-04-P-516 was found at the establishment of the appellants loaded with motor spirit without valid documents. The tanker lorry was stated to be in a position of decantation with the hose pipe connected to the delivery manifold of the tank lorry and the decantation pipe of the underground MS tank. According to the respondent Company this indicated that the appellants had purchased motor spirit from unauthorised sources with an intent to sell the same. The respondent Company issued letter of termination dated 9.02.1998 recording that the breaches which had been found constituted a violation of cls. 4, 6(c), 7-B and sub-cls. (a), (c), (g), (l), (n) and (4) of cl. 9 of the Dealership Agreement. It was recorded that the breaches were serious and as a result thereof in the exercise of the power conferred by sub-cls. (d), (f) and (g) of cl. 19, the Dealership Licence Agreement stood terminated.
(3.) The appellants instituted a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the termination was illegal together with a mandatory order restraining the respondent Company from obstructing the appellants in carrying on business at the outlet. In the notice of motion in the suit the appellants prayed for mandatory order and direction restraining the respondent Company from obstructing the appellants in their business in using the pump and interfering in any manner with the supply of petrol and diesel to the outlet continuously, as was being done in the past.;