Patna High CourtC. REV./179/2007dismissed

Sanjay Kumar v. The Indo Burma Petroleum Co.Lt

2016-12-07Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta,Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.179 of 2007 IN LPA 656 of 2006 =========================================================== Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Sunder Das, Resident of Sabita Sadan, MIG-354 (P.C.C. Colony) Kankerbagh, P.S.-Kankerbagh, District-Patna, Authorized dealer M/s Shivam Auto Station, N.H.19, Dudhaila, Sonepur, District-Saran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Indo Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd., Shanti Niketan, 12th Floor, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata through the General Manager (E.R.).

2. The General Manager (E.R.), The Indo Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., Shanti Niketan, 12th Floor, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata.

3. The Deputy Manager (Sales), The Indo Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., Abhay Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Fraser Road, Patna.

4. The Territorial Manager, The Indo Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., Abhay Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Fraser Road, Patna.

5. The Assistant Manager (Sales), The Indo Burma Petroleum Company Ltd., Abhay Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Fraser Road, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Ranjan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate.

Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocate.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 07-12-2016 The order dated 16.08.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is the subject matter of review in the present application.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the premises of the petitioner were inspected once, whereas this Court has proceeded on the assumption that the premises were inspected twice.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.179 of 2007 dt.07-12-2016 2/2 We do not find that such could be a ground for review of the order, as the premises were admittedly inspected once and found that certain documents were not produced. The dealership agency of the petitioner was terminated on 11th of May, 2005. The Division Bench has considered various other aspects of the matter to terminate the dealership.

We do not find that there is any error apparent on record which may warrant review of the order when the agency has been terminated more than 11 years back.

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Mishra/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 14.12.2016 Transmission Date