Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/123/2021 of M/s GAJANAND KIRODIMAL Vs BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED on 17 September 2026
2026:CGHC:40763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 123 of 2021 1. M/s Gajanand Kirodimal A Partnership Firm Under The Partnership Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At BPCL Petrol Pump Civil Lines Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), Through Tis Partner Kamal Kumal
CGHC010300432020
2026:CGHC:40763
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 123 of 2021
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.
1. M/s Gajanand Kirodimal A Partnership Firm Under The Partnership Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At BPCL Petrol Pump Civil Lines Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), Through Tis Partner Kamal Kumal Kejriwal S/o Late Shri K.M. Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years
2. Satyanarayan Kejriwal S/o Late K.M. Agrawal Aged About 58 Years Partner M/s Gajanand Kirodimal R/o Civil Lines, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners versus
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Territory Manager, 46 Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Bhawan, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Head Retail West, bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Plot No. 6, Sector-2 Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210
3. Assistant Manager (Sales) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 46 Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Bhawan, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Aprajita Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Harneet Kaur holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board 18/09/2026
1. The petitioners, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, in the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the termination order dated 25.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-P/22) alongwith all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his retail outlet. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
2. By efflux of time, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petition has become infructuous.
3. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Priyanka Judge