Dismissed

Rajendra Shankarlal Mutha v. Dilip Shankarlal Mutha and Others

Bombay HC6 Nov 2012LPA/245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order allowing the respondent's Writ Petition. The Court held that the licensing authority was incorrect to reject the petitioner's fresh license application merely due to the owner's objection. Possession and existing licenses in the petitioner's name sufficed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; civil application disposed. Directions to issue license refused; title dispute kept open.

Rajendra Shankarlal Mutha Vs Dilip Shankarlal Mutha and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

srk

904-lpa-245-2012.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.245 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.420 OF 2012

¶5

Rajendra Shankarlal Mutha

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Dilip Shankarlal Mutha and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Mr.Sachin D. Kadam for appellant. Mr.P.S.Dani with Mr.Vivek Salunke for respondent no.1.

¶11

ORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 6 NOVEMBER 2012

¶12

PC:

¶13

Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18 September 2012 of the learned single Judge by which the Writ Petition of the respondent herein - Dilip Shankarlal Mutha came to be allowed. In the Writ Petition, the respondent no.1 herein had challenged the order of the licensing authority that is confirmed by the appellate authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Regulation No.2.1.12 of the Food Safety & Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011.

srk

904-lpa-245-2012.sxw

The case of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was that father of the petitioner and respondent no.3 - Shankarlal Mutha was tenant of the premises in question and was carrying on the business with the license under the above statutory provisions in the name of Dilip Provision Stores. Business was being carried on by the father during his life time and the writ petitioner was assisting him in carrying on the said business along with the father. After the demise of the father, the petitioner applied for grant of license afresh in his name. That application having been rejected by the licensing authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, the writ petitioner moved the learned Single Judge. In support of his case that the writ petitioner was in possession of the premises in question, reliance was placed on several documents including the following:

¶18

(i) License under the Insecticide Act, 1968 issued in favour of the petitioner on 7/6/2009 for M/s.Dilip Provision Stores;

¶19

(ii) License under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 transferred in favour of the writ petitioner on 11 April 2006;

¶20

(iii) Registration certificate in the name of M/s.Dilip Provisions Stores under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 in favour of the writ petitioner;

¶21

(iv) Registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Registration 1956 for M/s.Dilip Provision Stores issued in the name of the writ petitioner on 12 August 2008.

srk

904-lpa-245-2012.sxw

(v) Affidavit of Shankarlal Mutha, father of the writ petitioner as well as respondent no.3 who had recited in the affidavit that the business of M/s.Dilip Provision Stores was transferred to the writ petitioner. The said affidavit dated 24 April 2008 was notarised by none other than Respondent No.3 himself who is an Advocate and Notary.

¶26

In view of the above factual position, the learned Single Judge has held that the Licensing Authority was not justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner merely on the ground that the writ petitioner had not obtained no objection certificate of the owner of the premises i.e. respondent no.3.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant (respondent no.3 in the writ petition) has submitted that since the business was being carried on by Shankarlal Mutha – father of the petitioner, respondent no.3 and two sisters, the license cannot be issued solely in the name of the writ petitioner and that if at all the licensing authority is to be directed to issue license, the direction should be that the license be issued in favour of all the four heirs of the deceased.

¶28

The learned single Judge has rightly held that when the record clearly indicates that the writ petitioner is in possession of the premises in question and several licenses in relation to the business are issued in his

srk

904-lpa-245-2012.sxw

favour, the licensing authority would not be justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for a fresh license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 merely on account of objections raised by respondent no.3. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge.

¶33

We make it clear that if respondent no.3 herein institutes any proceeding before a competent Court regarding title to the property, the said Court will decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by issuance of the license by the licensing authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. All the contentions on the issues of right, title and interest of the parties with regard to the immovable property are kept open.

¶34

Subject to the above clarifications, we dismiss the appeal.

¶35

In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, civil application does not survive and the same stands disposed.

¶36

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Rajendra Shankarlal Mutha v. Dilip Shankarlal Mutha and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Shankarlal Mutha v. Dilip Shankarlal Mutha and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

City Space and 2 Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 and Mulund Panchsheetal Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.- Applicant

The Estate Officer, and Ors. Vs M/S Amar Pharma and Equipments and Ors.

M/S. Kashimira Medical and General Stores, through Prop. Mukesh K. Parikh Vs the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Purohit Vs Vasantrai Lavji Mehta

Sadanand Sambaji Gaikwad and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development and Anr.

M/S. Kashimira Medical and General Stores, through Prop. Mukesh K. Parikh Vs the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.