Indian Oil Dealership Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds IOC Decision on Lease Validity

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a dispute concerning the grant of an Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) dealership in Anapurna Jaiswal vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others. The case revolved around whether a lease agreement submitted by the petitioner was valid at the time of application, a key factor in determining dealership eligibility.

The judgment upheld the IOC’s decision to disqualify the petitioner based on the lease agreement’s commencement clause, which stipulated that the lease would begin only upon approval of the petrol pump. The Court concluded that such a lease was not in effect on the application date, thereby making the petitioner ineligible for the 35 marks allotted under IOC’s dealership selection criteria.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when IOC issued an advertisement on 12.10.2011 inviting applications for petrol pump dealerships. The petitioner, Anapurna Jaiswal, applied for a dealership on 11.11.2011. Based on evaluation, she was initially ranked first.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/placido-francisco-pinto-v-jose-francisco-pinto-supreme-court-upholds-sale-deed-orders-eviction/

However, after a complaint, IOC reviewed the lease agreement submitted by the petitioner and found that it stated that the lease would commence only from the date of approval of the petrol pump. This meant that, as of the application date, the lease was not in effect. Consequently, IOC decided to disqualify the petitioner and award the dealership to another candidate.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Anapurna Jaiswal)

• The petitioner argued that her lease agreement, dated 08.11.2011, was valid because possession of the land had been transferred to her on the same date.
• She relied on Clause 7 of the lease deed, which stated:

“That, in case, the petrol pump is not approved, then, the second party shall have to hand over the land transferred on rent to the first party.”

• She contended that this clause implied that the lease was operative from 08.11.2011, despite Clause 1, which stated:

“That, the period of this lease-deed will be 30 years, which shall take into account w.e.f. date of approval of petrol pump.”

• She also cited Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which states:

“A registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of registration.”

• She argued that the disqualification was based on an unreliable complaint and that her rightful first-place ranking should be restored.

Arguments by the Respondent (Indian Oil Corporation)

• IOC contended that the lease was not effective on 11.11.2011, the application date, because it explicitly stated that it would commence only upon the approval of the petrol pump.
• It maintained that to qualify for the 35 marks awarded for land possession, the applicant must have a clear title or a registered lease for at least 19 years and 11 months as of the application date.
• The corporation argued that since the lease period had not commenced, the petitioner did not meet this requirement and was rightfully disqualified.
• IOC pointed out that the rectification deed filed later by the petitioner to amend the lease terms was an afterthought and could not be considered.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court analyzed Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which defines “transfer of property” as an act where a person conveys property either in present or future.
• It examined Section 105, which defines a lease as a transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property for a fixed period.
• The Court emphasized that a lease requires a definite commencement date and that in this case, the lease explicitly stated that it would begin upon petrol pump approval, which had not occurred as of the application date.
• The Court cited Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. (AIR 1955 SC 376), which held that an agreement to transfer property in the future does not automatically amount to a present transfer.

Key Findings by the Supreme Court

• The lease in question did not create a present right of possession on 08.11.2011, as the lease period was contingent upon a future event (approval of the petrol pump).
• Since the lease was not in effect as of 11.11.2011, the petitioner did not qualify for the 35 marks under the dealership selection criteria.
• Section 47 of the Registration Act does not override the clear terms of the lease agreement.
• The rectification deed filed later by the petitioner to amend the lease terms could not be accepted, as it attempted to change the fundamental nature of the original agreement.

Final Verdict

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld IOC’s decision to disqualify the petitioner.
• It ruled that the 1994 and 2008 circulars issued by IOC were legally valid and necessary to ensure fair dealership selection.
• The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to dealership allotment as she did not meet the eligibility criteria at the time of application.

This judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to eligibility criteria in dealership allocations and establishes that lease agreements must be fully effective at the time of application to be considered valid for evaluation.

Petitioner Name: Anapurna Jaiswal.
Respondent Name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others.
Judgment By: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 30-09-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: anapurna-jaiswal-vs-indian-oil-corporati-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-30-09-2021.pdf