State of Hy v. M/S Dhillon and Co.Bhiwani

IN T

¶1RSA-200 State of Haryana M/s Dhillon and

2. RSA-188

M/s Dhillon and State of Haryana

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

For

For

Mr

Mr

For

For MANDEEP PA

1.

common judgme controversy.

2.

RS State of Haryan judgment and d the suit of the pl THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

Re Da 01-2000 (O&M) a and Others

VERSUS d Company Licensee Firm, Bhiw 8-2000 (O&M) d Company Licensee Firm, Bhiw VERSUS a and Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryan r the appellants in RSA-2001-20 r the respondent in RSA-188-200 r. Pratap Singh, Advocate and r. Manav Sharma, Advocate r the appellants in RSA-188 -200 r the respondent in RSA-2001-20 -.-

ANNU, J. ese two Regular Second Appe ent, as they arise out of the same A No. 2001 of 2000 has been f na and others, against M/s Dhil decree dated 23.04.1997 passed b laintiff was decreed to the effect

JAB AND HARYANA ARH served on:-22.09.2025 ate of Decision : 25.09.2025

....Appellants wani

....Respondent wani

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU na. eals are being disposed of by t e proceedings and relate to the sa filed by the defendants, namely lon and Company, challenging by the learned trial Court wher t that the defendants were restrain

- this ame eby

from recovering of 40 days from as against the ju appellate Court decree of the tr plaintiff-firm wa

03.09.1995 till had deposited an

3.

M/s Dhillon an lower appellate remission for th thereby modifie

4.

Acc of both the Cou decree of the l remission. Brief Facts

5.

plaintiff, M/s D the State of Har firm duly regist licensee of coun of Group No. 1 through one of competent and d g the licence fee from the plainti m the date of filing of the suit, as udgment and decree dated 22.10 whereby the appeal was part rial Court dated 23.04.1997 w as entitled to remission of 90% the end of the month of Septem ny amount against that period, it e connected RSA No. 188 of 20 nd Company, challenging the ju e Court dated 22.10.1999 inasm he period from 03.09.1995 to the d the decree granted by the trial cordingly, the defendants have a urt s below, while the plaintiff lower appellate Court in as m e brief facts of the case, as emer Dhillon and Company, filed a su ryana and Another. It was pleade ered with the Registrar of Firms ntry liquor (L–14–A) and Indian of Bhiwani command area for th its registered partners and licen duly authorised to institute the pr

ff to the tune of 90% for the per detailed in the decree-sheet, as w

0.1999 passed by the learned low tly allowed and the judgment was modified to the effect that of the licence fee with effect fr mber 1995, and that if the plain was entitled to a refund thereof. 000 has been filed by the plaint udgment and decree of the learn much as it restricted the relief e end of September 1995 only, Court. assailed the judgments and decr f has challenged the judgment much as it restricted the relief rge from the pleadings, are that uit for permanent injunction aga ed that the plaintiff is a partners s and Societies, Haryana, and is n Made Foreign Liquor vends (L he year 1995–96. The suit was fi nsee, Shri Radha Ram Jain, who roceedings.

- riod well wer rom ntiff . tiff, ned f to rees f of inst ship L–2) filed

6.

It w was granted the Bhiwani, for the place and the bi

¶2It was averre plaintiff was re instalments.

7.

It w vends througho Mahatma Gandh licence fee work

8.

torrential rains f affecting the co and Bhiwani tow

03.09.1995 onw filed on 27.09.1 1995, was furthe

9.

It w district adminis liquor and Indi remained closed plaint, continue restoration of no

10.

Bhiwani Group was further pleaded that the plain licence for L–14–A and L–2 in e excise year 1995–96. The auc id amounts were ₹6,26,50,000 fo ed that the requisite security am equired to pay the whole of the was further pleaded that the licen out the year except for three hi Jayanti, and Republic Day. C ked out to ₹1,73,066 for L–14–A e grievance of the plaintiff was followed by devastating floods s mmand area of the plaintiff's li wn were submerged under water wards, and the flood fury had n

¶995The countryside, already re er flooded, paralysing normal lif was pleaded that as per newspap stration had aggravated the situ ian Made Foreign Liquor vend d. It was further averred that som ed to remain closed thereafter ormal conditions. e plaintiff alleged that life in th No. 1 had come to a complete st

ntiff firm, being the highest bidd the command area of Group No tion for the aforesaid licences to or L–14–A and ₹1,95,50,000 for mount was also deposited, and e bid money in 11 equal mont nce fee was payable for running days, namely Independence D Calculating on that basis, the da A and ₹50,405 for L–2. s that with effect from 03.09.19 struck Bhiwani District, particula icences. It was alleged that villa r ranging from 5 feet to 10 feet fr not abated even when the suit w eeling under heavy rains of Aug fe. per reports, the negligent acts of uation, and as a result all coun ds from 03.09.1995 to 15.09.19 me vends, as detailed in para 5 of due to stagnant water and n e district and the command area tandstill, with people advised no

- der, o. 1, ook r L– thly Day, aily 995, arly ages rom was gust f the ntry f the non-a of

leave their hous people could no drastically to ab

03.09.1995. The irreparable, due fault on its part.

11.

fee to the tune o period of 45 day situation, the St ₹1,000 per hecta relied upon para remission of lice

12.

It w to grant remissio constraining the of permanent in from the plainti from seizing th Group No. 1, an 90% for the peri

13.

Up contesting the s plaintiff, or that that the suit was submitted that t ses, wheile many residents shif ot afford to purchase liquor, and t bout 20% of the daily turnover a e plaintiff claimed that it suffer e to the continuous closure of t e plaintiff, therefore, asserted its of 90% of the average daily fee t ys. It was also pointed out that, r tate of Haryana had granted flo are and ₹25,000 each to affected a 3.19 of the Punjab Excise Manu ence fee in cases of natural calam was pleaded that although the pla on of licence fee on account of th e plaintiff to file the present suit. njunction restraining the defen ff to the tune of 90% for the pe he liquor stock of the plaintiff nd further for a direction to rem iod from 03.09.1995 onwards. on notice, the defendants app suit. It was denied that any ca t the plaintiff had any locus sta s premature and not maintainable the civil Court had no jurisdict

fted to safer places. Consequen the sales of the plaintiff's vends as compared to the period preced red huge financial loss, which w the vends, which was without s entitlement to remission of lice till normalcy returned, at least fo recognising the severity of the flo ood relief to farmers at the rate d shopkeepers. The plaintiff furt ual, Volume III, which provides mity. aintiff had requested the defenda he floods, the request was declin The relief claimed was for a dec dants from recovering licence eriod from 03.09.1995 onwards in the command area of Bhiw mit the licence fee to the extent eared and filed written statem ause of action had accrued to andi to file the suit. It was plead e in the present form. It was furt tion to entertain and try the sui

- ntly, fell ding was any nce or a ood e of ther for ants ned, cree fee wani t of ment ded ther

view of the sta alleged to be ba misjoinder of ne On the pleading

¶1pra

¶2suit

3.

¶4pre

¶5pre

6. CP

¶7nec

¶8Sec

9.

14.

Bot Findings of the

15.

Aft the learned trial

atutory provisions governing e d for want of notice under Sectio ecessary parties. The defendants gs of the parties, the learned trial Whether the plaintiff is ent ayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff has no t? OPD Whether the suit of the plai . 2 of the written statement? OPD Whether this Court has no j esent suit? OPD Whether the suit of the pl esent form? OPD Whether the suit is bad for C? OPD Whether the suit is bad fo cessary parties? OPD Whether the suit is liable ction 35-A CPC? OPD Relief. th the parties have led evidence. e Trial Court ter recording evidence of both s Court returned its findings as un

excise matters. The suit was a on 80 CPC, and for non-joinder a prayed that the suit be dismissed Court framed the following issu titled for permanent injunction o cause of action to file the pres intiff is premature in view of p D jurisdiction to try and entertain laintiff is not maintainable in r want of notice under Section or non-joinder and mis-joinder to be dismissed with costs un ides and considering the pleadin nder:

- also d. ues: n as sent para r of nder ngs,

i) of firm Kan (AE

3.9 clo rep ver Ma is p ent dat def

ii) ma join evi Sec issu pla

Issue No. 1 (Entitlement of p The Court held this issue in the testimony of PW1 Radha m) and corroborating official wi nungo), PW3 Raghbir Singh ETO), and PW5 Ravinder Kuma re were indeed unprecedented

9.1995 onwards, resulting in com sure of liquor vends. Documen ports, photographs, and official rsion. The Court relied on pa anual to hold that in such natural permissible. Accordingly, the Co titled to remission of 90% of th te of filing of the suit, and fendants from recovering the sam Issues No.2 to (C aintainability, notice under Se nder, and costs under Section 3 The onus of proof on all the e Court found that the defendan dence to prove these objections ction 80 CPC and bar of jurisd ues were decided against the aintiff.

plaintiff to injunction): favour of the plaintiff. On the ba Ram Jain (partner of the plain itnesses PW2 Gunpal Singh (Off h (Kanungo), PW4 Bhim Sin ar (photographer), it was found t rains and floods in Bhiwani fr mplete disruption of normal life tary evidence including newspa l records supported the plainti ara 3.19(E) of the Punjab Exc l calamities remission of licence ourt concluded that the plaintiff w he licence fee for 40 days from to an injunction restraining me. Cause of action, jurisdicti ction 80 CPC, non-joinder, m 5-A CPC): ese issues was upon the defenda nts had failed to adduce any cog s. The plea of want of notice un diction was rejected, and all th defendants and in favour of

- asis ntiff ffice ngh that rom aper ff's cise fee was ion, mis-nts. gent nder

iii) dec lice per ven inju lice

16.

Thu plaintiff was dec Findings of the

17.

District Judge, allowed the app

18.

the case of the p Manual, Vol. III concession or re to natural calam the floods and onwards were n period the plain and documentar plaintiff's versio

19.

the licence agre Issue No. 9 (Relief) : In view of the above findi creed. The trial Court restrained ence fee from the plaintiff to th riod of 40 days from the date nds of the plaintiff in Group unction was also granted direc ence fee to the said extent. us, vide judgment and decree creed to the above extent. e Lower Appellate Court e defendants carried the matter Bhiwani, vide judgment and eal. e lower appellate Court , after re plaintiff fell within the ambit of C I, which empowers the Excise an emission of licence fee where lic mities or unavoidable circumstanc heavy rains which occurred in natural calamities beyond the con ntiff's business remained compl ry evidence including contemp on. e contention of the State that th eement was rejected on the gr

ings, the suit of the plaintiff w the defendants from recovering he tune of 90% of the fee for of filing of the suit, in respect p No. 1, Bhiwani. A mandat cting the defendants to remit dated 23.04.1997, the suit of in appeal. The learned Additio decree dated 22.10.1999, pa eappraising the evidence, noted t Clause 3.19(c) of the Punjab Exc nd Taxation Commissioner to gr ensees fail to run their business ces. The appellate Court found t n Bhiwani District from 3.9.19 ntrol of the plaintiff, and during t letely paralysed. Official witnes poraneous records corroborated here was no clause of remission round that the statutory provisi

- was t of tory onal artly that cise rant due that that sses n in

contained in the appellate Court under Section 5 the District Mag case, the closure therefore Sectio

20.

relation to the p remission of 90 suit i.e. 27.09.1 the evidence est end of Septembe only. The appel 1995, there was

21.

Con

23.04.1997 wer remission of 90% further directed period, the sam affirmed the fin as to jurisdic misjoinder/non-j

22.

Fee detailed in para

e Excise Manual were applicab also rejected the argument tha 54 of the Punjab Excise Act wh gistrate or Sub-Divisional Magis e was due to natural calamity an n 54 had no application. e appellate Court, however, d eriod for which remission was g % licence fee for a period of 40

¶995The appellate Court found tablished closure and disruption er 1995, and therefore remission llate Court reasoned that once th no justification for remission be nsequently, the judgment and re modified to the effect that % of the licence fee with effect f d that if the plaintiff had depos me shall be refunded. On the rem ndings of the trial Court against t ction, maintainability, notice -joinder of parties. eling aggrieved, above-numbere No.1 of this judgment.

ble and could not be ignored. T at remission could only be gran hen shops were closed by orders strate. It was held that in the inst nd not by order of a Magistrate, disagreed with the trial Court granted. The trial Court had allow 0 days from the date of filing of d this to be erroneous, holding t n of business from 3.9.1995 till n ought to be confined to that per he floods subsided after Septem eyond that month. decree of the trial Court da the plaintiff firm was entitled from 3.9.1995 till 30.9.1995. It w sited any amount against the s maining issues, the appellate Co the defendants, rejecting objecti under Section 80 CPC, ed two RSAs have been filed

- nted s of tant t in wed that riod mber ated d to was said ourt ons

Submissions on 2000)

23.

Lea both the trial C against the reco appellate Court matter merely evidence led on adduced by the The Courts belo of the licence fe in holding that r of the Punjab E or applicable to is mandatorily r that as per law, liability could n the plaintiff and is wholly errone Submissions on / Respondents in

24.

Lea judgment of the the extent it rest contentions are t n behalf of State of Haryana arned counsel for the appellants/ Court and the lower appellate Co ord. It is contended that both th have misinterpreted the facts a on conjectures and surmises n record. The Courts below ha plaintiff, while ignoring the ev ow have erroneously restrained th ee for the period 03.09.1995 to 3 remission of licence fee could b xcise Manual. It is submitted th the facts and circumstances of t ecoverable from the plaintiff. Th , the plaintiff was duly bound t not be waived in any circumstan d its affirmation by the learned A eous and deserves to be set aside n behalf of M/s Dhillon & Co. (A n RSA No. 2001 of 2000) arned counsel for the plaintiff/ap e learned Additional District Ju tricted the remission of licence fe that both the trial Court and the a

(Appellants in RSA No. 2001 /State has assailed the judgments ourt as being illegal, perverse, he trial Court as well as the low and evidence, and have decided without appreciating the defe ave wrongly believed the evide vidence of the defendant/appella he defendants from recovering 9

30.09.1995. Both Court s have er be claimed under para 3.19 Vol. hat these provisions are not relev the present case, and the licence he Courts below failed to apprec to deposit the licence fee and su nce.The decree passed in favour Additional District Judge, Bhiwa . Appellants in RSA No. 188 of 20 ppellant has assailed the impugn udge, Bhiwani dated 22.10.1999 fee only up to 30.09.1995. The m appellate Court concurrently fou

- 1 of s of wer ence nce nts. 90% rred . III vant fee iate uch r of ani, ned 9 to main und,

on the basis of unprecedented h

03.09.1995 onw closure of all liq fault; it could n entitled to remi Excise Manual, unforeseen and erred in law in r even after Septe weeks, and nor aspect while cu examining PW-Singh (Kanung (Photographer), and excise docu remained paraly failed to apprec to the public du earlier years in the finding was not have been committed a se judgment and de and the plaintiff days from 03.09 f overwhelming oral and docu heavy rain and floods in Bhiwan wards which completely paraly quor vends in the area of the pla ot operate its business because ssion of 90% of the licence fee , Vol. III, which specifically p unavoidable circumstances. The restricting the relief only for the ember, the flood waters continue rmalcy had not returned. The urtailing the relief. The plainti 1 Radha Ram Jain, PW-2 Gunpa go), PW-4 Bhim Singh (AET besides tendering photographs uments which proved beyond dou yzed for more than 40 days. T iate that even government recor uring the flood period, and even similar circumstances e.g., in vi recorded that floods were a na confined to a shorter period. T rious error in restricting it only ecree of the learned lower appel ff is entitled to remission of 90%

9.1995, if not beyond, till the con

umentary evidence, that there w ni and the surrounding region fr ysed normal life and resulted aintiff. The plaintiff firm was no of natural calamity, and hence i e as per para 3.19(E) of the Pun provides for remission in case e learned Additional District Jud e month of September 1995. In f ed to remain in the area for seve learned Court below ignored t iff had led sufficient evidence al Singh (Kanungo), PW-3 Ragh TO), and PW-5 Ravinder Kum s, news clippings, official recor ubt that the business of the plain The learned lower appellate Co rds showed distribution of free fo n excise dues had been remitted llage Bamla in 1992–93. That o atural calamity, the remission co The learned lower appellate Co y till 30.09.1995. Accordingly, llate Court is liable to be modifi % of the licence fee at least for nditions became normal.

- was rom d in ot at it is njab e of dge fact, eral this by hbir mar rds, ntiff ourt food d in nce ould ourt fied, r 40

Findings

25.

Hav appeals, this Co lower appellate that the decree o

26.

At

03.09.1995 in B Court, on the b Jain, PW2 Gun PW5 Virender K material includi finding that norm remained closed plaintiff firm w own fault but d the State either DW1 Ram Bha collected in Bh occurrence of f which binds this

27.

was that remissi in the licence ag provisions of pa contemplates th licensee from ving considered the submission urt is of the considered view tha Court cannot be sustained in the of the trial Court deserves to be r the outset, the factum of unpr Bhiwani district and its surroundi asis of consistent and corrobora npal Singh, PW3 Raghbir Sing Kumar, Photographer, supported ing newspaper cuttings and pho mal life in Bhiwani was paralyse d or functioned at a negligible le was prevented from carrying on due to natural calamity. These fi by producing rebuttal evidence agat Sharma, Excise Inspector, hiwani town and that certain floods and disruption of busine s Court in second appeal. e main objection of the learned ion of licence fee cannot be gran greement. This submission cann ara 3.19 of the Punjab Excise M hat where unforeseen and unav running the licensed prem

ns made before this Court in th at the impugned order of the learn e manner it restricted the relief, restored. recedented floods commencing ing areas is not in dispute. The t ated evidence of PW1 Radha R gh, PW4 Bhim Singh (AETO) d by contemporaneous document otographs, came to the categor ed, liquor vends of the plaintiff f evel of 5–10% of sales, and that its licensed business not due to indings have not been displaced e or by pointing out any pervers , himself admitted that water h shops were affected. Thus, ess is a concurrent finding of f d counsel for the appellants–St nted in absence of an express cla not be accepted in view of the cl Manual, Vol. III, which specifica voidable circumstances prevent mises, the Excise and Taxat

- hese ned on trial Ram tary ical firm o its d by sity. had fact tate ause lear ally

Commissioner September 199 circumstances." Manual otiose situations.

28.

Act only the Di shops, and unle without merit. T order for electio rendering the ve formal order of incapable of be submerged entir

29.

As Court, while up the period 03.09 the trial Court. T evidence on rec 1995. PW1 and remained collec activity did not even beyond Sep Court's finding equitable is bas erred in curtailin is empowered to grant remissi 5 squarely fall within the phr To hold otherwise would rend and defeat the very purpose of e contention of the State that und strict Magistrate or Sub-Divisio ss such an order is passed no re The present is not a case of clo ons or law and order exigencies ends physically inaccessible and f closure cannot negate the gr ing run. Court s are not to be b re towns and villages. regards the duration of remis holding the entitlement of the p

9.1995 to 30.09.1995, i.e., 27 d This restriction, in the opinion o cord shows that the effect of fl d PW2 have categorically stated cted in the town and adjoining resume. Food grains were being ptember, indicating that life was g that remission of 40 days w ed on proper appreciation of ev ng the relief without assigning co

ion of licence fee. The floods rase "unforeseen and unavoida der the beneficial provision of f providing relief in extraordin der Section 54 of the Punjab Exc nal Magistrate can order closure emission can be claimed, is equa osure of vends due to an execut s. It is a case of a natural calam d non-functional. The absence o round reality that the shops w blind to the reality of floods wh ssion, the learned lower appel plaintiff to remission, restricted i days, as against 40 days granted of this Court, was not justified. T floods continued well into Octo d that even after 26.09.1995, wa g villages and the normal busin g supplied by government agenc s yet to return to normalcy. The t was reasonable, proportionate, vidence. The lower appellate Co ogent reasons.

- s of able nary cise e of ally tive mity of a were hich late it to d by ober ater ness cies trial

30.

As jurisdiction und for want of notic Court have rig executive order the Excise Man had also filed a Court, hence the

31.

Thu that:

¶1doc

¶03sale

¶2Ma

¶3low Cou

¶4not

¶5rem Conclusion

32.

Acc dismissed. RSA regards the other objections of t der Section 57 of the Punjab Exc ce under Section 80 CPC, both th ghtly rejected the same. The of the Government, rather, it h nual provisions. The suit was th an application under Section 80( e technical objection does not sur us, after considering the matter The plaintiff firm has e cumentary evidence that due

09.1995, its liquor vends rema es The case squarely falls und anual entitling remission of licen The remission cannot be res wer appellate Court but must exte urt. The objections of the State tice, and lack of express clause in The decree of the trial C mission of 90% of licence fee for cordingly, RSA No. 2001 of 20 A No. 188 of 2000 filed by t

the State that the civil Court lack cise Act or that the suit was bar the trial Court and the first appel plaintiff has not challenged has sought equitable relief based herefore maintainable. The plain

(2) CPC and obtained leave of rvive. r from all angles, this Court fi established by cogent oral e to floods commencing fr ained closed or suffered negligi der para 3.19 of the Punjab Exc nce fee. stricted to 27 days as done by end to 40 days as found by the t regarding jurisdiction, non-joind n the agreement have no merit. Court dated 23.04.1997 grant r 40 days deserves to be restored 000 filed by the State of Haryan the plaintiff firm is allowed. T

- ked rred late any d on ntiff nds rom ible cise trial der, ting .

judgment and d firm shall be en days from 03.09 period, the same

33.

Pen

September 25, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh decree of the trial Court dated 2 ntitled to remission of 90% of t

9.1995, and if any amount has a e shall be refunded. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

3.04.1997 is restored. The plain the licence fee for the period of already been deposited for the s stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing

- ntiff f 40