Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Rule 15 Imposes Liability Only When Placement Agency Fails To Perform, Causing Monetary Loss to JSBCL: Jharkhand HC Reads Down Excise Rule

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Jharkhand High Court, in a landmark judgment, has clarified the contentious Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022. The Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan, held that the Rule imposes liability on a placement agency only when it fails to perform its duties within its scope, leading to a monetary loss to JSBCL.

Brief on Legal Point of Judgement: The court opined that Rule 15 should be read down to mean the liability of the placement agency is confined to its scope of work and subject to the principles of natural justice.

Facts and Issues: Several placement agencies challenged the validity of Rule 15, arguing it unfairly penalized them for shortfalls in Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR), regardless of their actual performance or control over liquor sales.

Viability of Subordinate Legislation: Upholding Rule 15 in principle, the court emphasized the intra vires nature of subordinate legislation, stating it should conform to the parent statute and constitutional principles.

Contractual Obligations and Excise Act Compliance: The obligations under the agreement and rules should align with the legislative framework of the Jharkhand Excise Act and uphold constitutional values.

Penalty Imposition and Natural Justice: The court emphasized that penalties under Rule 15 should be imposed only after establishing a placement agency’s non-performance and causing a monetary loss to JSBCL, ensuring adherence to natural justice.

Reading Down Rule 15: The court read down Rule 15, limiting the penalizing of placement agencies to cases of non-performance causing monetary loss to JSBCL.

Decision: The court allowed all writ petitions, directing that Rule 15 be read down to limit its scope. It was clarified that placement agencies are liable only when their non-performance leads to monetary loss. The court also provided relief to Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. by quashing its Earnest Money Deposit forfeiture, with liberty to JSBCL to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2024

Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & Others

Latest Legal News