Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

Excise Officer To Decide Within A Week To Release 1,500 Boxes Of Beer: RJ HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D: 01 JULAY 2022

On Friday, the Rajasthan High Court ordered the District Excise Officer of Alwar to decide within a week whether or not to release 1,500 cases of Original BIRA 91 Boom premium strong beer seized by the Rajasthan Police [M/s B9 Beverages Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Others].

The boxes were seized by the police because they were being transported in violation of the Rajasthan Excise Act of 1950.

Single-judge Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal ordered the District Excise Officer of Alwar to decide the petition of B9 Beverages Private Limited, the manufacturer of Bira beer, expeditiously due to the approaching expiration date of August 2022 for the confiscated beers.

On February 28, 2022, 1,500 cases of BIRA 91 beer were transported by road from Madhya Pradesh to the Bira warehouse in Gurugram, Haryana.

The Rajgarh Police in Alwar, however, seized the shipment, alleging that it was transported in violation of the Rajasthan Excise Act of 1950.

Therefore, Bira petitioned the Excise Authority and Police Department for the release of the confiscated boxes, but the request remained pending.

However, as the expiration date of the beers drew near, the present writ petition was filed with the High Court requesting a prompt decision on the Excise Officer's appeal.

Due to the utmost necessity, the Court decided the petition without sending notice to the respondents.

"Respondent No. 3 (District Excise Officer) is ordered to decide the petitioner's Section 69 (2-B) of the Act of 1950 application within one week of receiving a copy of this order. The respondent Nos. 1 (State Of Rajasthan) and 2 (Town Inspector, Alwar) are ordered to cooperate with the respondent No. 3 in order to comply with this court's order, which was issued earlier "the Judge ordered.

Rohit Tiwari, VN Dubey, and Ibrahim Kannodwal were the attorneys who represented the petitioner.

M/s B9 Beverages Private Limited

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Others

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/01-07-2022-Ms_B9_Beverages_Private_Limited_v__State_of_Rajasthan___Ors.pdf"]

Latest Legal News