Hc, Legal News, ET LegalWorld – Legal Firms

[ad_1]

Nagpur: Holding that family disputes cannot be a reason for suspending a liquor licence as the government also suffers losses, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has quashed the May 6 order of Amravati state excise collector who had suspended the country liquor licence of a woman.

Quoting the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973, the excise collector took the step after the petitioner’s sons approached him for inclusion of their names in the CL-III licence which is required for selling country liquor. As a result, the petitioner’s business came to a standstill.

“In such a situation (in family disputes), appropriate directives can be given for taking care of the respondents’ apprehension. But, suspending the CL-III licence and bringing the business of country liquor, being run for a number of years, to a halt cannot be the solution,” said Justice Manish Pitale while allowing the petitioner’s plea.

The license was originally issued in the name of L Jaiswal and later it was transferred in the name of her adopted son M Jaiswal. He then inducted his wife (first petitioner) as a partner and established a partnership firm on December 12, 2014. The collector then permitted the couple to record their names in the CL-III licence as partners.

The dispute started after Jaiswal expired on December 26, 2019, as a fight for the licence started between his wife and two sons. One of the sons had also filed a civil suit against his parents for declaration, partition.

The trial court, however, restrained him from interfering with the peaceful possession of a liquor shop and also from obstructing his parents from carrying out the business of country liquor. One of the sons then moved an application before the excise superintendent for inclusion of names of all legal heirs in the CL-III licence while another approached him stating that it should not be renewed without his consent. Their mother raised objections to her sons’ demands.

The collector allowed the sons’ applications of inclusion of their names into the CL-III licence.

When the licence came up for renewal, the petitioner’s sons filed an objection, which was opposed by her. However, the collector suspended their CL-III licence on May 6, holding that there was a dispute between legal heirs and it would not be renewed till they resolve differences.

The petitioner challenged the collector’s order in the high court through counsel MM Agnihotri.



[ad_2]

Source link