Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12430 (UTT)

ANAND KUMAR v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD

WPMS/2904/2025 · 2025-10-14

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:9150 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2904/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Inder Pal Kohli, Advocate for respondent no.1. 3. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 2. 4. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 5. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4. 6. Indian Oil Corporation granted dealership for retail sale of petroleum products to respondent no. 4. Petitioner contends that he was inducted as partner by respondent no. 4 for running the petroleum business and petitioner spent a substantial amount, however, respondent no. 4 is not permitting the petitioner to participate in the day-to-day functioning of the petroleum dealership. 7. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:- ”(i) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Indian oil corporation to recover the amount of Rs 2025:UHC:9150 8476954/from respondent NirmalaNegi, which was incurred by the petitioner in lieu of partnership deed dated 30.3.2015 and to repay the said amount to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a rite order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to conclude the vigilance and income tax enquiry against the Shirdi Kisan Seva Kendra khasra no.169 M village Kamora Paragana Manglaur Tahsil Roorkee district Haridwar through proprietor Nirmala Negi within stipulated period as deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.” 8. From the relief clause, it is apparent that petitioner wants to settle some personal score with respondent no. 4, which cannot be permitted in a writ jurisdiction. If petitioner has any grievance, he can approach a competent court of law, for dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts. 9. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1 31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.10.14 18:00:05 +05'30'