Telangana High Court
WP/40725/2014 of A.Uma Maheswara Reddy AND Co., Vs Indian Oil Corporation on 31 December 2014
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.40725 of 2014 Between: A . Uma Maheswara Reddy & Co., (Indian Oil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
Present
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40725 of 2014
Between:
A. Uma Maheswara Reddy & Co.,(Indian Oil Dealers), Bye Pass Road,Mangalagiri 522 503, Guntur District,Rep. by its authorized representativeB.S.R.K.D.V. Prasad, S/o. Veerabhadaiah,Aged 60 years, R/o. Mangalagiri Village andMandal, Guntur District.
.. Petitioner
AND
Indian Oil Corporation,Rep. by its Chairman, Having office at3079/3, J.B. Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar,New Delhi & 2 others
.. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAOWRIT PETITION No.40725 of 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted aggrieved by the action of therespondents in blocking the supplies of the MS & HSD to thepetitioner firm vide letter Ref.No.AUM Reddy, dated 24.12.2014.
2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, thelearned counsel for the petitioner as well the as the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents submits that by order, dated29.12.2014, the dealership agreement is terminated and furthersubmit that the writ petition has become infructuous and may bedisposed of accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatchallenging the termination of the dealership, a separate writpetition is moved.
4. Leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate the ordersof the termination, dated 29.12.2014, and the consequential action,the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thiswrit petition shall stand closed.
_________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 31[st] December, 2014
KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40725 of 2014
Date: 31[st] December, 2014
KL