Disposed

G.Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2012PIL/110/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of PIL Nos. 110 and 111 of 2004 and W.P. No. 2859 of 2002. The court directed the Excise Department to monitor private respondents' adherence to settlement terms regarding excise duty arrears and authorized the petitioners to trigger action upon breach.

What did the court decide?

Directed Excise Department to monitor respondents' adherence to payment terms and authorize petitioners to report breaches for immediate action.

G.Mahesh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

8.pil.110.111.04.doc

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO. 110 OF 2004 WITH

¶4

C.A.NO. 55 OF 2007 WITH C.A.NO. 477 OF 2007 WITH

¶5

PIL NO. 111 OF 2004

G. Mahesh

..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

W.P.NO. 2859 OF 2002

¶13

Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. ..Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶16

..Respondents

¶17

Mr. P.B.Shah for Petitioner in PIL No. 110 of 2004 Mr. V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent No.1

¶18

Mr. H.C.Daruwalla i/b Pandya Ghandy and Co. for Respondent No.2 in PIL No. 111 of 2004

¶19

Mr. Darius Shroff i/b Subodh Kurdukar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in PIL No. 110 of 2004 and petitioner in WP No. 2859 of 2002

¶20

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶21

DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2012.

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

The reliefs claimed in this Petition is to direct

¶24

respondent no.1-State to suspend the licence of respondent

¶25

Pg 1 of 3

¶26

8.pil.110.111.04.doc

¶27

no.2 forthwith and recover the arrears of excise duty from respondent nos. 2 to 7, which was around Rs.80 crores inclusive of interest, in a time bound programme. The issue regarding the recovery of arrears of excise duty, has been examined by the Government at the highest level, firstly, a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary (Excise) was constituted in 2004 who in turn, considered all aspects of the matter and submitted its report to the Government. The Cabinet considered the said report including the legal opinion of the Advocate General and decided to resolve the dispute with the Respondent-company on terms referred to in the affidavit of Prakash Tatyasaheb Goud, Joint Secretary, (State Excise) Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, dated 3.4.2010. As per the said arrangement agreed upon by the State Government, the private respondent has paid the amounts in installments since 2009.

¶28

All that can be now observed is that the Excise Department should ensure that the private respondents adhere to the conditions specified by the State Government for paying the arrears of excise duty. In case any breach is committed, we hope and trust that the Department will proceed against the private respondents in accordance with

¶29

Pg 2 of 3

¶30

8.pil.110.111.04.doc

¶31

law. It will be open to the petitioners to bring to the notice of the Principal Secretary, Excise Department if any such breach is committed by the private respondents. If such representation is received from the petitioners, the Principal Secretary shall immediately take appropriate steps in the matter and issue such direction as may be warranted. Besides this observation, nothing further requires to be done.

¶32

Petition disposed of accordingly. All applications and petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶33

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. ]

¶34

kandarkar

¶35

Pg 3 of 3

G.Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhiryasheel Vijay Sutar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdul Nasir Abdul Samad Jalal Vs Divisional Commissoner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Mohammed Afzal and 2 Ors. Vs the Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chandrakant Bhaurao Jumle and Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Kolhapur (Ujlaiwadi) Vimantal Prakalp Grast Shetkari Mandal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kolhapur (Ujlaiwadi) Vimantal Prakalp Grast Shetkari Mandal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Madhukar Digamber Akotkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Dhondiram Pratap Shinde Vs Palus Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through President, Kishor Dnyandeo Patil

Smt. Ellakanni Widow of Muthuraman Varadraj and Ors. Vs the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, Kalyan and Ors.

Dhiryasheel Vijay Sutar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Kumar Bavdhankar Vs Shri. Kashinath Vitthal Sodmise and Ors.

Anil Ganpatrao Gujar Vs Food Corporation of India, through General Manager and Ors.

Aadhar Mahila Vikas Sanstha Vs All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) and Ors.