Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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