Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J., SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maa Sheetla Distributors Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.
1. Heard Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhay Chattopadhya, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 & Shri C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 51/2026, whereby the learned Single Judge, while entertaining the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’), challenging a notice dated 10.12.2025 issued by the In-charge Excise Officer, has restrained the respondents from taking any further action on basis thereof, and has issued various other directions also. The operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2026 is as under :-
“11. Until further orders, the Official-respondents are restrained from taking any further action on the impugned notice dated 10.12.2025, annexure no. 1 as well as on the application of respondent no. 3 dated 10.11.2025. Simultaneously, during this period Official-respondents are dire
Writ courts cannot grant interim relief beyond prayers by restraining un-challenged actions on third-party applications; incompetent subordinate notice quashed without affecting competent authority's....
Failure to deposit the required security amount disqualifies a bidder from obtaining a license for three years, as per Clause (v) of Rule 74 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956.
order of blacklisting /debarment had been passed by the District Excise Officer regarding as many as 39 bidders and that this action indicated the dubious modus operandi resorted to by the bidders to....
Point of Law : For want of the inspection report before this Court, it cannot be presumed that the substance of the inspection report or the summary of the documents was furnished and that the summar....
Excise authorities must independently exercise prerogative in license cancellation without cognizance of biased applications from manufacturers against distributors, requiring scrutiny for official c....
The main legal point established is that the disputed factual questions should be adjudicated by the competent authority, and the grant of license in excise matter is not a fundamental right.
Point of law: Granting license to such bidders, who have back-pedaled to serve their own vested interest and hidden agenda is against the public policy and contrary to statutory mandate
The rule of alternative remedy limits the court's writ jurisdiction, which should not be exercised when statutory remedies are available, particularly in administrative licensing matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
