Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Samaira Jewels Pvt. Ltd & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1777 of 2023 with W.P.(C) 17279 of 2022 and CM Appl. 54925 of 2022, W.P.(C) 131/2023, W.P.(C) 429/2023 and CM APPL. 1706/2023, W.P.(C) 1157/2023 and CM APPL. 4477/2023, W.P.(C) 1180/2023 and CM APPL. 4521/2023, W.P.(C) 1187/2023 and CM APPL. 4547/2023, W.P.(C) 1223/2023 and CM APPL. 4655/2023, W.P.(C) 1224/2023 and CM APPL. 4657/2023, W.P.(C) 1225/2023 and CM APPL. 4659/2023.
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Mr. Kamal Sethi, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 1777/2023.
Mr. Santosh Tripathi, SC (Civil) GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar and Ms. Mehak Rankawat, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Mr. Vipin Garg, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Mr. Kartik Mittal and Mr. Vaasu Bhasin, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 17279/2022 and CM APPL. 54925/2022, W.P.(C) 1157/2023 and CM APPL. 4477/2023, W.P.(C) 1180/2023 and CM APPL. 4521/2023, W.P.(C) 1187/2023 and CM APPL. 4547/2023, W.P.(C) 1223/2023 and CM APPL. 4655/2023, W.P.(C) 1224/2023 and CM APPL. 4657/2023, W.P.(C) 1225/2023 and CM APPL. 4659/2023..
Mr. Sudhir Vats, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 131/2023.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Mr Prashant Sivarajan, Mr Saharsh Jauhari, Mr. Justine George & Mr. Surya Kiran Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 429/2023 and CM APPL. 1706/2023.
Mr. Tushar Sharma and Mr. Aditya Laroyia, Advocates for R-3 in W.P.(C) 17279/2022 and CM APPL. 54925/2022, W.P.(C) 429/2023 and CM APPL. 1706/2023, W.P.(C) 1157/2023 and CM APPL. 4477/2023, W.P.(C) 1180/2023 and CM APPL. 4521/2023, W.P.(C) 1187/2023 and CM APPL. 4547/2023, W.P.(C) 1223/2023 and CM APPL. 4655/2023, W.P.(C) 1224/2023 and CM APPL. 4657/2023, W.P.(C) 1225/2023 and CM APPL. 4659/2023.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of property owners' rights and the prevention of their suffering due to disputes between lessees and government departments.
Headnote:
De-sealing - Properties - Excise Act - [Excise Act, 19XX, Section XX] - The court ordered the de-sealing of properties leased to M/s Popular Spirits LLP and directed the transfer of liquor stock to a warehouse identified by one of the partners. The court also directed the preparation of inventories and the filing of expense statements by the Excise Department. It further prohibited coercive action by any authority regarding electricity, water connection, or other dues until the next hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The property owners sought de-sealing of their properties, which were sealed by the Excise Department due to non-payment of excise dues by their lessee, M/s Popular Spirits LLP. The court ordered the de-sealing of the properties and directed the transfer of liquor stock to a warehouse identified by one of the partners. It also prohibited coercive action by any authority regarding electricity, water connection, or other dues until the next hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property owners were not at fault and should not suffer due to the dispute between M/s Popular Spirits and the Excise Department. It also noted that the owners had not received rent for several months and were burdened with electricity and other dues.
Issues: The issues involved the sealing of properties due to non-payment of excise dues by the lessee, M/s Popular Spirits LLP, and the rights of the property owners in such a situation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the property owners should not be made to suffer due to the dispute between the lessee and the Excise Department. It also emphasized the need to protect the rights of the property owners and directed the transfer of liquor stock to a warehouse identified by one of the partners.
Final Decision: The court ordered the de-sealing of the properties, directed the transfer of liquor stock to a warehouse, and prohibited coercive action by any authority regarding electricity, water connection, or other dues until the next hearing.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present set of petitions have been filed by the Petitioners seeking de-sealing of their properties which were sealed by the Department of Excise, GNCTD due to non-payment of licence fees by their Lessee/Tenant, Respondent No.3- Popular Spirits LLP. The Petitioners further seek directions to the Respondents to dispose of the stocks lying in their properties as also vacant and peaceful possession of their properties.
3. The Petitioners are the owners of the properties which are detailed below:
| S. No. | Writ Petition(C) | Cause Title | Address |
| 1. | W.P.(C) 17279/2022 | Neelam Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | Shop Nos. 101, 102, 103- A, 103-B, 105, 106, 107,109 & 110 GF, Dawars Janak Market, LSC, Plot-5, C-1 Block Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110058 |
| 2. | W.P.(C) 131/2023 | Lokesh Sharma Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | Nos. 5&6, GF, Ashoka (Main) Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi-110035 |
| 3. | W.P.(C) 1157/2023 | Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | B-1, East Baldev Park near Tikona Park, Parwana Road, Delhi-51 |
| 4. | W.P.(C) 1180/2023 | Darshan Lal Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | P roperty No. 11/51, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031 |
| 5. | W.P.(C) 1187/2023 | Ravinder Sukhija & Ors. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | Property No.5&6, Bhagat Singh Road, Satnam Park Chander Nager, Delhi- 110051 |
| 6. | W.P.(C) 1223/2023 | Suresh Kumari Manchanda & Ors. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | Built up Property No. 5/1/4, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031 |
| 7. | W.P.(C) 1224/2023 | Kiran Bala & Ors. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | 53-A, 54,55&61 Main Patparganj Road, Khajuri Khas, Delhi-110051 |
| 8. | W.P.(C) 1225/2023 | Rajesh Bhatia & Anr. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | 3536-A/5, Plot No. 5/9 Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034 |
| 9. | W.P.(C) 1777/2023 | Samaira Jewels Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. | G26,27,28,29,30 (GF) Westend Mall, District Centre Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 |
4. The case of the property owners is that their premises were let out to Respondent No.3- M/s. Popular Spirits LLP, which was a license holder under the now scrapped Excise Policy which was valid till 31st August, 2022. M/s Popular Spirits had taken all these properties on rent for running licensed wine and beer shop. The terms and conditions of the agreements between the property owners and M/s Popular Spirits are different. However, a common order is presently being passed as the directions being passed today, would be common to all the writ petitions.
5. The case of all the Petitioners is that their properties have been sealed by the Excise Department owing to the fact that M/s Popular Spirits did not pay the entire excise amount which was due to the Department. The property owners pray for de-sealing of their properties.
6. It is common consensus between the parties that M/s Popular Spirits did not have an excise license as of 31st August, 2022 for sale of liquor and the properties had been sealed prior to the said date.
7. Orders have been passed from time to time in all these matters on different dates and the sum and substance of these orders is that the Petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to the dispute between M/s Popular Spirits and the Excise Department. The Petitioners are property owners who have given their properties on rent to M/s Popular Spirits and are in fact not stated to have received rent for the last several months. Ld. Counsels for the Petitioners also point out that the owners are being saddled with electricity and other dues as well.
8. As per the submissions made by ld. Counsels, the said firm M/s. Popular Spirits, has the following three partners:
i. Mr. Sahil Arora - 30%, with capital contribution of Rs.50,000/-
ii. Mr. Ram Diya - 45%, with capital contribution of Rs.6.50 crores
iii. Mr. Mohit Singh - 25%, with capital contribution of Rs.50,000/-
9. On 19th December, 2022, the Court had passed the following order in W.P.(C) 17279/2022 titled Neelam Aggarwal v. Government of National Capital of Delhi:
8. Heard. This Court has noticed that in an earlier writ petition as well, the property owner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) 16554/2022 ti
