REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10124    OF 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26153 of 2010)

M/s. Shalimar Gas & others ..    Appellants

-versus-

M/s. India Oil Corpn. Ltd & another .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and  

order dated 6.5.2010 of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 216/2010.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

1

4. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgment  

and  hence  we  are  not  repeating  the  same  here  except  where  it  is  

necessary.

5. Appellant No. 2 before us,  Mrs. Aruna Nanda, is a widow of late  

Sqn Ldr.  Romesh Nanda who was killed in an air  crash in 1978 in  

course of his duty.  She was allotted an Indane Gas distributorship as a  

sole proprietor of M/s. Shalimar Gas, appellant No. 1.  She continued  

looking after the management till 2003 herself or with the help of her  

two daughters.   

6. On 26.2.2003, appellant No. 1, i.e. M/s. Shalimar Gas Service,  

was converted into a partnership firm with appellant No. 2 and with her  

two  daughters  as  partners.  After  the  marriage  of  her  daughters,  

appellant No. 2 entered into a partnership with appellant No. 2, Anil  

Kumar, on 21.12.2006 with 51% and 49% shares, respectively.

7. The  respondent-corporation  held  an  enquiry  and  came  to  the  

conclusion that appellant No. 2 assigned/transferred the distributorship  

in violation of the terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement  

2

and got the approval for reconstitution of the firm by misrepresentation  

to the Corporation. Hence the appellant’s distributorship was cancelled  

on 9.11.2009.

8. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Learned  

Single  Judge  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  which  was  dismissed  on  

23.3.2010.   Thereafter  the  appellant  filed  a  writ  appeal  before  the  

Learned Division Bench which was also dismissed by the impugned  

judgment.  Hence, this appeal.

9. In our opinion the judgment of the Learned Division Bench as  

well  the  Learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  cannot  be  

sustained.

10. Appellant No. 2, admittedly, was a war widow who was given a  

source of livelihood by awarding the distributorship of Indane Gas in  

1986 and now she is an old lady with several ailments.  Being an old  

lady and because of her ill health she could not be an active partner and  

was thus not available for day to day running of the firm.  However,  

she continued to hold the majority shares in the firm.

3

11. The contention of the respondent-corporation was that by virtue  

of  the  dealership  agreement,  appellant  No.  2  could  neither  sell  the  

distributorship nor lose control over it.  The High court has held that  

appellant No. 2 had lost control of the partnership firm.  We do not  

agree.   

12. It is an admitted fact that appellant No. 2 still holds 51% shares in  

the firm.  Merely because she is an old lady who is a widow, it is quite  

natural that she could not look after the day to day functioning of the  

firm.   By  its  letter  dated  15.12.2006  the  respondent-corporation  

accorded its approval for the reconstitution of the partnership firm, i.e.  

M/s. Shalimar Gas Service.  Thereafter there was a formal agreement  

between appellant  No.  1 with appellant  Nos.  2 & 3 as partners  and  

respondent No. 1 on 15.2.2007.  It is a fact that the gas agency is the  

sole source of her livelihood, but unfortunately the respondents have  

not taken a humanitarian view in the matter.

13. The law should take a more liberal view in the case of widows,  

physically handicapped people etc.   

4

14. In  view of  the  above,  the  impugned judgment  of  the  Learned  

Single  Judge  as  well  as  the  Division  Bench  are  set  aside.   The  

impugned order  dated  9.11.2009  terminating  the  distributorship  also  

stands set aside and the respondents are directed to supply gas cylinders  

to the appellants regularly in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement  

dated 15.2.2007.

15. The appeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………J. (Markandey Katju)

……………………………J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi; November 29, 2010        

5