Disposed¶8

Excel Telecom Private Limited v. Union of India

Bombay HC28 Apr 2025WP/5251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Excel Telecom Pvt Ltd; Amol Premnath Jadhav; Union of India; Bombay High Court OOCJ; Writ Petition 5251 of 2024; quashing; impugned Circular 25 September 2020; impugned order 25 April 2024; AIMS Retail Services (2025) 2 TMI 596 (Del.); SLP dismissed by Supreme Court; Karuna Sachin Deora Writ Petition 4561 of 2024; order dated 29 September 2025 batch disposal; alternate remedy rejected; rule disposed; no costs; M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25 April 2024 (made based upon the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020) quashed and set aside; Rule disposed of; no costs; all concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order. ¶8

Excel Telecom Private Limited vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020 and the order dated 25 April 2024, made based upon that Circular, are liable to be quashed.

¶3

Court's answer

The relief relating to the quashing of the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020 now stands worked out, given the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (AIMS Retail Services) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 25 April 2024 was almost entirely based upon the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020, which has already been struck down.

¶7

Key takeaways

Since the impugned order was almost entirely based upon the struck-down Circular, no useful purpose would be served by relegating the Petitioner to an alternate remedy.ratio¶7
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25 April 2024 is quashed and set aside; the Rule is disposed of in these terms, with no costs.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Writ Petition No. 5251 of 2024, decided 01 October 2025 (Sonak & Sethna, JJ.; order per M. S. Sonak, J): Excel Telecom Pvt Ltd & Anr sought quashing of an impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020 and of an order dated 25 April 2024 founded upon it. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors ((2025) 2 TMI 596 (Del.)), which struck down the impugned Circular and whose accompanying Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and on this Court's own order dated 29 September 2025 in Karuna Sachin Deora v. Union of India & Ors (Writ Petition No. 4561 of 2024 and connected matters) taking cognizance thereof, the Court held that the relief qua the Circular stood worked out. Finding the impugned order dated 25 April 2024 to be almost entirely based upon the already-struck-down Circular, the Court declined to relegate the Petitioner to an alternate remedy despite the Respondents' submission, quashed and set aside the impugned order, and disposed of the Rule without costs.

¶1

913-WP-5251-2024-III.DOCX

¶2

Amol

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5251 OF 2024

¶5

Excel Telecom Pvt Ltd & Anr …Petitioners

AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV

Versus

Union of India & Ors

…Respondents

Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.10.03 10:33:46 +0530

¶11

Mr Chirag Shetty , with Ms Ayush Agarwal, i/b, Economic Law Practice, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr Karan Adik , for the Respondent.

¶13

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 01 October 2025

¶14

ORAL ORDER:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J)

¶15

Heard Shetty for the Petitioner and Mr Karan Adik at the request of the Court, appears on behalf of the Respondents. Mr Adik usually appears for the Respondents in these matters.

¶16

Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

The Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020 and the order dated 25 April 2024 which is made based upon the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020.

¶18

The Delhi High Court, in the case of M/s AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors¹ is already struck 1 (2025) 2 TMI 596 (Del.)

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

913-WP-5251-2024-III.DOCX

¶21

down the impugned Circular and even the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶22

Taking cognizance of the above developments, this Court, in its order dated 29 September 2025 disposing of a batch of Writ Petitions in the case of in the case of Karuna Sachin Deora Vs Union of India & Ors² , has taken cognizance of the striking down the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020.

¶23

The relief relating to the quashing of the Circular now stands worked out given the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶24

We have perused the impugned order dated 25 April 2024 which is challenged in this Petition. Though, Mr Adik states that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy, since we find that the impugned order was almost entirely based upon the impugned Circular dated 25 September 2020, which has already struck down, no useful purpose would be served by relegating the Petitioner to alternate remedy.

¶25

Accordingly, we also quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25 April 2024. The Rule is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(Advait M. Sethna, J)

¶27

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶28

2 Writ Petition No. 4561 of 2024 and other connected matters

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Excel Telecom Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Excel Telecom Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Potash Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property

Shetty Auto Enterprises vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority

Gautam Mukarjee vs Union of India

Abhay Venkatesh Keskar vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Zim Vie India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Zb Dental India Pvt. Ltd) Thr. Its Auth. Sig. Nisar B. Babji vs Union of India Thr. the Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affiars and Ors.

Shraddha Tradelink Proprietary Concern of Sunil Chokhani HUF vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Ors.