Natural Justice Prevailed: High Court’s Decision in the Indian Oil Corporation Dealership Case

In a recent landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India addressed the Indian Oil Corporation dealership case, focusing on the principles of natural justice. The High Court’s decision, which favored the respondent partnership firm, emphasized the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to be heard before concluding legal actions. This case sheds light on the importance of upholding fundamental legal principles within corporate disputes in the country.


  • The first respondent, a partnership firm, had its dealership terminated by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 27.11.2006 for various irregularities.
  • The first respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
  • Multiple show cause notices were issued to the first respondent for irregularities noted during inspections on different dates in 2006.
  • The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the termination order of the dealership based on the violation of principles of natural justice.
  • Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has appealed against the High Court’s decision.
  • The partnership firm runs a retail outlet of IOC in Purani Bazar, Karvi Town, District Chitrakoot.
  • The High Court found that the appellant-Corporation did not provide an opportunity to the first respondent to present their case before terminating the dealership
  • The High Court deemed this action to be a violation of the principles of natural justice
  • Despite this finding, the High Court decided to quash the order of termination of dealership of the first respondent
  • The appellant-Corporation was directed by the High Court to reverse the termination decision

Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash


  • The High Court’s main reason for setting aside the termination was the violation of principles of natural justice.
  • The High Court believed that the appellant-Corporation should have given the respondent(s) the opportunity to file a reply before making a decision.
  • The appropriate course of action, according to the High Court, would have been for the Corporation to allow the respondent(s) to respond and then issue a reasoned order.

Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal


  • The Court expressed the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the concerned authority for a fresh opportunity and a reasoned order.
  • Mr. Virag Gupta, the counsel representing the respondent, stated that the respondent is no longer interested in continuing the dealership due to facing hardship over the years.
  • The counsel requested a refund of the security amount of Rs. 7,05,746 deposited with the appellant-Corporation, as the respondent would be satisfied with it.
  • The respondent had sent Letters dated 14.12.2007 and 12.02.2009 regarding the matter.

Also Read: Synergy and Solution Incorporation v. Vipin Dhopte – Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court of India


  • The first respondent firm has clearly stated they are not interested in continuing the dealership.
  • They have also mentioned their intention to go before the authorities for a fresh enquiry.
  • This indicates their unwillingness to further pursue the dealership arrangement.


Case Number: C.A. No.-007433-007433 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *