Disposed

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh v. the Commissioner State Excise and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2017CHSW/20/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed chamber summonses filed to amend pending writ petitions. The amendments sought to challenge the validity of specific rules governing the grant and renewal of liquor licenses. The court permitted the amendments and scheduled the admissions.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summonses allowed and made absolute; amendments permitted within two weeks; writ petitions placed for admission on 01.09.2017.

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1)-CHS-21-17 and group matters.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.21 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2014

¶4

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) ..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶5

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) ..Petitioner Versus The Commissioner State Excise and others ..Respondents

¶6

ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.232 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1453 OF 2014

¶7

Hotel and Restaurant Association (Western India) ..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Hotel and Restaurant Association (Western India) ..Petitioner Versus The Commissioner State Excise and others ..Respondents

¶8

ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.19 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1690 OF 2014

¶9

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh ..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶10

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh ..Petitioner Versus The Commissioner State Excise and others ..Respondents

..Respondents

BGP.

1 of 3

(1)-CHS-21-17 and group matters.doc .

¶15

ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.20 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1691 OF 2014

¶16

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh ..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh ..Petitioner Versus The Commissioner State Excise and others ..Respondents

¶17

Mrs. Veena Thadani a/w Mr. Mahesh Gowda & Mrs. Priyanka Raut for the Applicants in Chamber Summons No.19 of 2017, Chamber Summons No.20 of 2017 and Chamber Summons No.21 of 2017.

¶18

Mr. Sameer Pandit a/w Ms. M. Elango i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the Applicant in Chamber Summons No.232 of 2016.

¶19

Mr. S. G. Aney, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Milind More, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶20

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 21^st JULY, 2017

¶21

P.C.

¶22

1 The above Chamber Summonses have been filed for seeking

¶23

amendment in the above Writ Petitions so as to raise a challenge to the vires of the Rules 2 and 4 of the Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity

¶24

and Fees for Grant, Renewal or Continuance of a Licences) Rules, 1996.

¶25

The above Writ Petitions are pending admission. The Learned Senior

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

BGP.

¶28

(1)-CHS-21-17 and group matters.doc .

¶29

Counsel Mr. S. G. Aney appearing for the State has no objection to the Chamber Summonses being allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the Writ Petitions. The Chamber Summonses are accordingly allowed and made absolute. Resultantly, the amendment is permitted in terms of the schedule to the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summonses. The amendment to be carried out within two weeks from date and to be furnished to the other side i.e. the State. The Chamber Summonses are accordingly disposed of.

¶30

2 The State to file its reply to the amended Petitions within four weeks of the amendment being carried out or the amended copies of the Petitions being served on the State. Place the above Writ Petitions for admission after six weeks i.e. on 01.09.2017 alongwith Appellate Side Writ Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.4898 of 2014, Writ Petition No.5048 of 2014, Writ Petition No.5047 of 2014, Writ Petition No.4901 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.6322 of 2014.

¶31

[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

BGP.

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh v. the Commissioner State Excise and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh v. the Commissioner State Excise and Ors.

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

Janabai Fakkad Pokharkar and Ors. Vs Pritpal Singh S/O But Singh and Ors.

Mrs. Pramila Mohan Waghmare Vs Mr. Mohan v. Waghmare

Janabai Fakkad Pokharkar and Ors. Vs Pritpal Singh S/O But Singh and Ors.

Bruhanmumbai Daru Vikreta Sangh Vs the Commissioner State Excise and Ors.

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) Vs the Commissioner State Excise and 2 Ors.

Shree Sai Siddhi Co-Operative Housing Soc Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.