INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus M/S SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL & ORS.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus M/S SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL & ORS.

The partnership between three partners did not stand dissolved on the death of one partner because the partnership deed expressly provided for continuance; IOCL had not terminated the dealership and therefore could not discontinue supply; IOCL misapplied its guidelines by insisting that all legal heirs join, and the High Court correctly issued mandamus directing IOCL to continue kerosene supply to the partnership firm until proper reconstitution or termination of the dealership, subject to any order of a probate or competent civil court and periodic review.

Parties
Petitioner: Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.; Respondent: M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 1381 of 2025 / Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court Dismissed (final Judgment)
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Death of a Partner, Reconstitution of Partnership, Dealership Agreement, Mandamus Under Article 226, Administrative Guidelines Interpretation, Continuance of Supply of Kerosene
Partnership Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Commercial Law Death of a Partner Reconstitution of Partnership Dealership Agreement Mandamus Under Article 226 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.

Petitioner

M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 1381 of 2025 / Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court Dismissed (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court rightly upheld the mandamus directing IOCL to maintain supply of kerosene to the partnership firm till reconstitution or termination of the dealership agreement
  2. 2 Whether the death of a partner dissolved the partnership or permitted IOCL to discontinue supply
  3. 3 Whether IOCL could insist that all legal heirs join the reconstituted firm or express unwillingness under its guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The partnership between three partners did not stand dissolved on the death of one partner because the partnership deed expressly provided for continuance; IOCL had not terminated the dealership and therefore could not discontinue supply; IOCL misapplied its guidelines by insisting that all legal heirs join, and the High Court correctly issued mandamus directing IOCL to continue kerosene supply to the partnership firm until proper reconstitution or termination of the dealership, subject to any order of a probate or competent civil court and periodic review.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1381 of 2025 dismissed
  • Impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2018 of the Calcutta High Court upheld