Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Petroleum Act, 1934

10 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

DURGA OIL COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1998 INSC 27529 July 1998Dismissed

Durga Oil Co., a dealer licensed under Form XI of the Petroleum Rules, stored high‑speed diesel (Petroleum Class B) in an underground tank exceeding 1,000 litres and dispensed it through a pump. The District Supply Officer ordered the company to cease using the tank, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed the company's

GASTRADE INTERNATIONALversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

2025 INSC 41128 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants imported oil from the UAE and declared it as Base Oil SN 50, but the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence re‑classified it as High Speed Diesel (HSD) and seized it. The Adjudicating Authority, CESTAT and the High Court each held the oil to be HSD, relying on three laboratory reports that tested only a por

C. ALBERT MORRISversusK. CHANDRASEKARAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 53026 October 2005Dismissed

C. Albert Morris leased a vacant plot in Pondicherry to operate a petrol bunk. The lease expired in 1996 and the landlord, K. Chandrasekaran, served a notice to vacate, filed an eviction suit (later dismissed for default), and sought cancellation of the No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) and non‑renewal of the licence unde

SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2001versus-

2004 INSC 20925 March 2004Dismissed

The President referred three questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) concerning whether natural gas (including LNG) falls under the Union List (Entry 53, List I), whether States can legislate on it under Entry 25, List II, and whether Gujarat's Gas (Regulation of Transmission, Supply and Distribution) Act,

M/S BASPA ORGANICS LIMITEDversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2020 INSC 19014 February 2020Dismissed

M/s Baspa Organics Ltd. (appellant) purchased a chemical plant and continued a fire‑and‑special‑perils insurance policy issued by United India Insurance Ltd. (respondent). After a fire in January 2002, the insurer denied the claim, alleging that the appellant had over‑valued the plant and had failed to disclose that it

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S JAGANNATH & CO. & ORS.

2013 INSC 25012 April 2013Dismissed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) terminated the dealership licence of Jagannath & Co. after a routine inspection in August 2005, alleging that samples of motor spirit and diesel failed quality tests. The dealer contested the termination, arguing that the sampling and testing procedures violated the 2005 Marketi

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,versusMODERN SCHOOL, FARIDABAD & ORS.

2019 INSC 1688 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad issued an office order in 1999 requiring private tubewell owners, including Modern School, to pay user charges for discharging waste water into municipal drains. The schools challenged the levy, arguing that under Sections 87 and 88 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994,

VST INDUSTRIES LTD.versusVST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION AND ANR. ETC.

2000 INSC 5787 December 2000Dismissed

VST Industries Ltd., a cigarette manufacturing company, operated a canteen for its workers under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. After 1982 the canteen was managed by private contractors, but the workers continued to be employed and received wages, ESI and PF benefits through the contractors, while the company s

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusCHEMBUR SERVICE STATION

2011 INSC 1742 March 2011Matter referred to larger bench

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) entered into a Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL) agreement with Chembur Service Station, appointing it as a dealer to sell BPCL's petroleum products. After a surprise inspection revealed alleged manipulation of a dispensing unit, BPCL issued a show‑cause notice and subse

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search