Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2024WP/8905/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order in a writ petition challenging state recovery and prosecution notices; the State failed to file its affidavit-in-reply despite extension, was criticised for delay, ordered to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to the Legal Aid Fund, with ad-interim relief continued.

What the court decided

AI extract

Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

37-WP.8905.2024.doc

¶2

Sayyed

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8905 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Anay J. Banhatti for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for RespondentState.

¶8

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : 27^th AUGUST 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

On 16^th July 2024, the following order was passed:-

¶11

“1. Ms. Vyas seeks time to file affidavit in reply. Reply to be filed and copy served by 9^th August 2024. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served by 19^th August 2024.

¶12

Stand over to 26^th August 2024.

¶13

Until 31^st August 2024 there shall be Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause – (b) which reads as under :

¶14

(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Orders and impugned Notices referred hereinabove in clause (a)(i), (a)(ii) and (a)(iii); to stay the recovery notices and such other proceedings initiated by the Respondents as referred hereinabove in clause (a)(iv); to stay the prosecution proceedings as referred hereinabove in clause (a)(v); and to order and direct the Respondents, their subordinates, servants and agents, to forthwith refrain from taking any steps pursuant to the said impugned Orders and impugned Notices.”

¶15

We are on 27^th August 2024 and still no reply has been filed. Ms. Vyas is seeking further time to file affidavit-in-reply. Mr. Banhatti is opposing.

¶16

We would purely by way of indulgence grant time upto and including 6^th September 2024 to file affidavit-in-reply. Time to file

1 of 3

Sayyed

37-WP.8905.2024.doc

rejoinder, therefore, extended till 27^th September 2024.

¶21

At the same Respondents have to be put to terms. Respondents have shown utter disregard to the directions given by the Court. If Respondents had any difficulty, they were duty bound to approach the Court and seek extension to file reply, not wait till the matter gets called out and then seek an extension. When the State had sought time to file reply, it was expected that the State should have done the exercise and filed the affidavit-in-reply. It must be kept in mind that parties approach Court only when they are pushed to the wall and when they have no other option due to inaction or incorrect action by State. We find that the State is only indulging in delaying tactics. This approach of Respondents to delay matters has to be deprecated.

¶22

Therefore, we direct Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/as costs for today’s adjournment. Mr. Banhatti says it may be given to charity. Respondents shall pay this amount by way of donation to the High Court Legal Aid Fund, Account No.60045304283, IFSCMAHB0000002, of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch-Fort, Mumbai 400 032, maintained by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai. Room No.105, 1^st Floor, PWD Building, High Court, Mumbai and to furnish the details of such cost to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai and obtain the receipt thereof physically or through Email, i.e., [email protected] which shall be the proof of such payment/deposit

2 of 3

Sayyed

37-WP.8905.2024.doc

This amount shall be paid on or before 6^th September 2024. Non-payment will result in the amount being doubled for every day’s delay and Court may even contemplate initiating contempt proceedings.

¶27

Respondents may recover this amount from Respondent No.4 or Respondent No.6 whose orders are impugned in this petition or from the officer/s responsible for not complying with this Court’s order.

¶28

Stand over to 7^th October 2024.

¶29

Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till 30^th November 2024.

¶30

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]

¶31

Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/08/2024 16:40:55

¶32

3 of 3

Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Proactive in and Out Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2

Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi-Huf vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-41-2-2, Mumbai

Proactive in and Out Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2

Oberoi Constructions Limited vs the Union of India

Sunny Arvindbhai Shah vs Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -19, Mumbai

Sunny Arvindbhai Shah vs Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -19, Mumbai