LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

ANIL KUMAR SAHOO vs SRI AMAL KUMAR SAHOO on 31 March, 2008

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-002400-002400 - 2008Official PDFAdvocates RANJAN MUKHERJEE | PARIJAT SINHA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2400 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.1091/2004]
ANIL KUMAR SAHOO ... APPELLANT(S)
:VERSUS:
AMAL KUMAR SAHOO AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

From our order dated 18.2.2008, it appears that Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, did not press the special leave

petition in respect of grant of licence for petroleum products. So far as grant of licence

in respect of Kerosene is concerned, it appears that the appellant has pressed its claim

on the basis of being the surviving partner of M/s. P.K. Sahoo. However, the private

respondents are claiming their right to carry out business in Kerosene on the ground

of inheritance.

In view of the rival claims of the parties, we are of the opinion that interest of

justice would be subserved if the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, South, in the District

of Midnapore is directed to decide the aforementioned dispute. We direct

accordingly.

The controversy may be resolved between the parties by the said authority,

without in any way being influenced by the observations made by the authorities as

also by the High Court in their judgments.

The respondent company shall grant licence in terms of the said order.

The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to

Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, South, in the District of Midnapore. The appeal is

disposed of with the aforementioned direction.

(S.B. SINHA)