Dismissed¶48

The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, v. Karthyayini

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026RP/344/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court review petition dismissed; review of compromise-based succession/transfer of CL-2, CL-9 and RVB excise licences of deceased H.Girish; Excise Rules 17A and 17B compliance and transfer fee preserved despite compromise; Karnataka Excise Act 1965; scope of review limited to manifest error apparent on face of record; merits reconsideration impermissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; liberty reserved for other remedies.

What did the court decide?

None; review petition dismissed, with the express clarification that the dismissal does not preclude the review petitioners from availing such remedies as are available in accordance with law. ¶48

The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, Vs Karthyayini — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; review petition dismissed, with the express clarification that the dismissal does not preclude the review petitioners from availing such remedies as are available in accordance with law.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.07.2024, disposing of the writ petition in terms of the parties' compromise on succession and transfer of the excise licences, is liable to be reviewed on the ground that the compromise circumvents the statutory scheme under Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules, including the payment of prescribed transfer fees. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The compromise accepted by the Court merely resolved the inter-se dispute between the legal heirs as to who could succeed to their respective licences; its acceptance neither takes away nor dilutes the statutory powers of the Excise Authorities nor exempts the parties from complying with the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Excise Rules. The transfer of the licence remains subject to compliance with Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules, including payment of the requisite transfer fee and other statutory dues payable to the State; hence the compromise is not opposed to public policy or prejudicial to the revenue interest of the State.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The power of review is extremely limited and can be exercised only when there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record; the grounds urged in the review petition essentially seek reconsideration of the merits of the order, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

¶45

Key takeaways

There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petition does not warrant any interference; the dismissal of the review petition does not preclude the review petitioners from availing such other remedies as are available in accordance with law.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC by the Commissioner of Excise and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru Urban District, seeking review of the order dated 26.07.2024 in W.P. No. 9222/2022 (Excise), whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a compromise between the legal heirs of the late Sri. H.Girish regarding succession and transfer of the CL-2 and CL-9 licences (with RVB licence) held by him under the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. The State excise authorities argued that the compromise circumvented Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules, including payment of prescribed transfer fees. Held: (i) the compromise merely resolved the inter-se dispute among the legal heirs; its acceptance neither dilutes the statutory powers of the Excise Authorities nor exempts the parties from compliance with the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Excise Rules — the transfer remains subject to Rules 17A and 17B, including the requisite transfer fee and other statutory dues, and is therefore not opposed to public policy or prejudicial to State revenue; (ii) the power of review is extremely limited, exercisable only for a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and the grounds raised amounted to an impermissible reconsideration of the merits; no such error existed. Review petition dismissed, without prejudice to other lawful remedies of the petitioners.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 344 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA, 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-08), ABAKHARI BHAVAN, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU 560 026.

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH A .,AGA)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARTHYAYINI

¶17

W/O LATE M.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶18

SRI H.MAHESH S/O LATE H.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT "VAJRAGIRI" 16 K.M., 2^ND CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 062.

¶23

SMT. R.POORNIMA, W/O LATE H.GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BAIRAVA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 026.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION S FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024 PASSED IN WP NO.9222/2022 (EXCISE), A COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND REHEAR THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The present review petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.9222/2022, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties regarding succession and transfer of CL-2 licence and CL-9 licence attached with RVB licence held by deceased Sri. H.Girish under Rule 17A of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short 'Excise Rules').

¶33

Learned counsel for the review petitioners would contend that the order dated 26.07.2024 is liable to be reviewed contending that the transfer of excise license must strictly comply with the provisions of Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules and therefore, the compromise entered between the parties cannot override the statutory scheme. It is submitted that the compromise allegedly circumvents the statutory requirement of payment of transfer fees prescribed under the Excise Rules and on this

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ground the review petitioners submits that the order passed by this Court requires reconsideration in excise of review jurisdiction.

¶38

This Court has carefully considered the

¶39

contentions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶40

The order dated 26.07.2024 was passed after taking note of the compromise petition voluntarily filed by the parties, wherein the petitioners consented to the arrangement regarding succession of the license. The Court accepted the compromise and directed the authorities to act in terms of the same. The contention urged in the review petition that the compromise accepted by this Court is contrary to Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules and that the excise license generate substantial revenue of the State, therefore, the transfer of such license cannot be permitted on basis of the compromise between the parties. The said contention cannot be accepted. The compromise merely resolved the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

inter-se dispute between the legal heirs as to who could succeed to their respective license. Acceptance of such compromise, does not in any manner take away or dilute the statutory powers of the Excise Authorities nor it exempts the parties from complying the requirements of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Excise Rules. The transfer of license would still be subject to the compliance of Rules 17A and 17B of the Excise Rules including payment of requisite transfer fee and other statutory dues payable to the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compromise accepted by this Court is opposed to public policy or prejudicial to the revenue interest of the State.

¶45

It is well settled that the power of review is extremely limited and can be exercised only when there is a manifest error apparent on the face of records. The grounds urged in the present petition would essentially seek reconsideration of the merits of the order, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. There is no error apparent on the face of record and the review petition

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14217 RP No. 344 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

does not warrant any interference. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the review petition does not preclude the review petitioners from availing such remedies as available, in accordance with law.

¶49

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed .

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶52

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, v. Karthyayini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, v. Karthyayini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R Pushpa Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri Sanjay Asrani Vs Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Smt. Elizebeth Rani. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sreenivasamurthy T Vs Sri D Krishnaraj

The Union of India Vs Kanavi Abdul Khadar @ Khadar Sab

Smt. Gangamma Vs Smt. Yallamma