Bpcl Dealership Agreement

Somoto . RTI application of 17.1.2014, filed by the applicant to request a copy of the concessionaire contract between BPCL &M/s Pushpabag Service CIC/SH/A/2014/000729 Station. Not satisfied. Corporation Ltd., BPCL, Bharat Bhavan, Parcel No. 31, K.I.T. Scheme No. 118, Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Box Post No. 16201 &16204, Kolkata 700095 The complainant was present.

cazalla conocer gente por Employee of the M/s Pushpabag service station and brought an action before a labour court against the petrol station in question. He requested a copy of the agreement between BPCL and M/s Pushpabag Service Station. …, BPCL announced the concessionaire licence of respondent`s subsidiary 1 and ordered the restoration of its concessionaire. The applicant`s application for review against this order was…, U.P Initially, the licensee`s licence was granted by an agreement of 24.7.1975. 3. It is the case of BPCL that a routine inspection of the OR in question was carried out by a team on 22-8-2005. 6. On 7-9-2005, BPCL issued a notice to respondents on why no action should be taken against them, including the termination of the merchant. The interviewees put their. . of the company, the appeal preferred by the petitioner having been rejected, while the order to terminate the merchant contract of 01.2.2013 was confirmed, the order to terminate. The merchant contract of 01.2.2013 and the appeal decision of 31.5.2013 are contested in Annexes 14 and 21 of the application.3.

tchat gratuit cam The facts are not disputed, but they are admitted. That`s right. The plaintiff happens to be a retailer of the defendant company, whose agreement dates back to 10.12.1990 A copy of the concessionaire contract is now recorded by the company by means of a report. . The marker test. On 9.9.2008, after reviewing Respondent 1`s response to the Show Cause Communication, petententen Corporation re-empted Respondent`s concessionaire contract 1. take such a drastic step as terminating the dealership contract. The learned single judge decided that even though Respondent 1 had refused to recognize the letter, so did. 1, according to the marketing discipline guidelines, caused a serious disadvantage to respondent 1 and the injunction to terminate the concessionaire contract of 9.9.2008 could therefore not be. As soon as the applicant has submitted a request for retail sale of BPCL, the company decides on the nature of the establishment of BPCL Retail Outlets as follows: . the concessionaire contract for a service station. Not satisfied with the respondent`s response, the applicant in both cases contacted the CIC in the second appeal.2.


This entry was posted in Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.