SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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

  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:20 AM
Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court