Karnataka High Court
WA/1389/2024 of M/S. SANDESH ENTERPRISES Vs THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER OF KARNATAKA on 22 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010526602024 NC: 2026:KHC:37818-DB WA No. 1389 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1389 OF 2024 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1389 OF 2024 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S. SANDESH ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BYITS
MANAGING PARTNER
H S SAGAR
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA
HAVING HIS ADDRESS AT
#36/6, SRINIVAS REDDY BUILDING
SECTOR -2, HSR LAYOUT
SOMASUNDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 027
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. POONAM S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER OF KARNATAKA
2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING
A BLOCK, BMTC SHANTI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
2.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (SOUTH)
PRESENTLY BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-7) - 560 027
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE
VIDHANA SOUDHA - 560 001
4.
H S SHAIALAJA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O M C SHIVALINGAIAH
RESIDING AT SHIVASAILANILAIAH
VIVEKANANDA NAGARA
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 581 453
…RESPONDENTS
(SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 26 OF THE
WRIT PROCEEDING RULES, 1997 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06/08/2024 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.17073/2024 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17073/2024 (Excise). The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 22.04.2014 passed by
HC-KAR
the Deputy Commissioner insofar as it relates to allocating CL-2 and CL-9 licences standing in the name of the appellant firm (M/s. Sandesh Enterprises) to its individual partners to be operated independently.
2. The appellant had filed an appeal against the order dated 22.04.2014 before the Excise Commissioner, which was dismissed. The appellant had thereafter preferred an appeal (Appeal No.259/2024) before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [KAT], which was pending at the material time. While the appeal was pending before the KAT, the appellant had preferred the writ petition.
3. The principal ground urged by the appellant was that the licences (CL-2 and CL-9) which were granted in the name of the appellant firm could not be split between the constituent partners. The controversy arises in view of the disputes that had arisen between the partners of the appellant firm.
4. Plainly, the inter se disputes of the partners of the firm do not concern the Excise Department. Since the Excise Department has
HC-KAR
granted licences to the appellant firm, the licences may be renewed in the name of the said firm or be transferred in accordance with the applicable rules. If the conditions of the licences are not complied with, it would be necessary for the Excise Department to take appropriate steps, including cancellation of the licence. However, it would be inapposite for the officials of the Excise Department to enter into the disputes of the partners and further decide as to which partner would carry on what portion of the business. These disputes are clearly outside the purview of the officials of the Excise Department. The Excise Authorities must necessarily confine themselves to the conditions applicable for the issue of a licence, its renewal, its cancellation, and other matters provided for under the relevant statutes and rules.
5. The learned Single Judge also noted that the appellant had instituted parallel proceedings: an appeal before the KAT and a writ petition before the court. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the parallel proceedings were impermissible. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the dispute on the merits. In view of the finding that
HC-KAR
parallel proceedings were not maintainable, it would have been apposite for the learned Single Judge to decline to entertain the writ petition.
6. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the KAT was dismissed in view of the express directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Since the impugned order has been set aside, we consider it apposite to direct that the said appeal (Appeal No.259/2024) be restored. The learned KAT shall consider the said appeal bearing in mind the observations made in the present appeal.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26