High Court can exercise its discretion to rectify decisions, in cases where contract is terminated for irrelevant or non-existent cause

The matter before High Court was regarding termination of dealership allotted to the petitioner. The High Court discussed jurisdiction vested with it under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and held that High Court can exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vested in it and interfere with the decision taken by the authority terminating the dealership of the petitioner.

Petitioner was appointed as a dealer according to the Dispensing Pump & Selling License Agreement (Dealership Agreement) executed between the parties on 30.12.2010. On 30.04.2012, the officers of the respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner and, thereafter, a letter dated 25.04.2012 came to be issued alleging certain irregularities committed by the petitioner at her place. Thereafter, a Show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner against which the petitioner gave a reply to the said notice and, thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the dealership of the petitioner.

From the record, it is further revealed that the petitioner has specifically alleged that during inspection no report for inspection dated 25.04.2012 was given to the petitioner. It is further revealed that the opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. For the alleged forgery committed by the petitioner, the respondent has not filed any FIR. Further, for the alleged malpractice or irregularity alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as per MDG, only a fine can be imposed and no powers are vested with the respondent to terminate the dealership of the petitioner for the alleged violation.

The High Court can exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the action of the respondent is arbitrary or discriminatory, which is violated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the contract is terminated for irrelevant or non-existent cause, the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by this Court.

Appearing counsel/s - D C Sejpal, Mitul K Shelat

Conviction under S. 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is invalid when the accused persons are acquitted under S. 379 IPC for theft arising from the same transaction.

AIR 2025 SC 3890 : AIROnline 2025 SC 760 Legal principles "In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge.", "Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires that the property is proved to be stolen property.", "If the prosecution fails to establish

Benefit of maternity leave with allowance to Contractual employee

AIROnline 2022 KER 275 An educational society CPAS is an "establishment" under S. 2(1)(b) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as the term covers any establishment under State law, not only commercial entities. Hence MB Act's applicable to contract employees in establishments like CPAS. Further

Legal Principles Regarding First Appeal S. 96 of Civil P C

AIROnline 2025 MAD 723 "Right of first appeal is a substantive, valuable right and not merely procedural.", "Unless expressly excluded by statute, the right of appeal cannot be limited or taken away by subsequent legislation.", "Appeal is a continuation of the suit.", "Judicial

Read next