Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Pernod Ricard India Pvirate Limited vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2026

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

                                       -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:790
                                                   WP No. 33195 of 2016


             HC-KAR




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                 DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                    BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 33195 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
            BETWEEN:

            M/S PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
            A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
            1956
            AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 104, ASHOKA
            ESTATE,
            BARAKHAMBA ROAD,
            NEW DELHI - 110 001
            REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
            MR.P.SRINIVAS.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. P CHINNAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            1.   UNION OF INDIA
                 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
Digitally        LEGAL METROLOGY DIVISION,
signed by        MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
SUMA B N
                 FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,
Location:
HIGH             DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
COURT OF         KRISHI BHAWAN,
KARNATAKA
                 NEW DELHI - 110 114.

            2.   CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY BENGALURU AND
                 APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
                 DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY,
                 GOVERMENT OF KARNATAKA,
                 NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD,
                 BENGALURU - 560 052.

            3.   THE DIRECTOR
                 LEGAL METROLOGY,
                 DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:790
                                      WP No. 33195 of 2016


 HC-KAR



     MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
     FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTUION,
     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
     KRISHI BHAWAN,
     NEW DELHI - 110 114.

4.   THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY
     FLYING SUAD -1,
     DEPARTMENT OF LEGA METROLOGY,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD,
     NEAR RAJ BHAVAN,
     CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 052.

5.   THE EXCISE COMMISIONER
     STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,
     A BLOCK, BMTC, KH ROAD,
     SHANTHINAGARA,
     BENGALURU - 560 027.

6.   KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD.,
     4TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,
     "A" BLOCK, BMTC, KH ROAD,
     SHANTHINAGARA,
     BENGALURU - 50 027
     REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. JAYAKARA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
    SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R2, R4 & R5;
    SRI. MADHU N. RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.05.2016
PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A. CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
FINAL NOTICE DATED 17.04.2015 [TYPED AS 17.5.2015] VIDE
ANNEX-B AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                    -3-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:790
                                                WP No. 33195 of 2016


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL


                            ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

''(a) Quashing the Impugned Order dated 23.05.2016 passed in Appeal No.CR-18/2015-16 by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure 'A');
(b) Consequently quashing the Final Notice dated 17.04.2015 [(typed as 17.05.2015). bearing No. ILM/FS-1/PRO/11/14-15] (Annexure 'B');
(c) Consequently quashing the Notice dated 16.02.2015 [bearing No. ILM/FS 1/PRO/117/14-15] (Annexure 'C');
(d) Consequently quashing the Final Notice dated 07.02.2015 [bearing No. ILM/FS-1/PRO/113/14-15] (Annexure 'D');
(e) Consequently quashing the Seizure Memo dated 06.12.2014 bearing no.2534 (Annexure 'E");
(f) Declaring that the labels which are approved by the Respondent No. 6 in accordance with the Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) Rules, 1967 read with the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1967 read with Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and other local excise laws; which are placed on the Petitioner's bottles containing spirituous liquor or alcoholic beverages, depicting the 'maximum retail price' and 'net quantity, are not in contravention of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 and other metrology laws, and that the said labels are in accordance with law;
(g) Awarding costs;
(h) Granting such other reliefs as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.''

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.4- Inspector of Legal Metrology, Flying Squad-1, Bengaluru had apparently visited the premises of M/s. Karnataka State -4- NC: 2026:KHC:790 WP No. 33195 of 2016 HC-KAR Beverage Corporation Ltd., (KSBCL) (Liquor Division) and found 1200 quantity of imported whiskey bottles (Net quantity 50 ML each) of 'Chivas Regal' 12 years whiskey and on which sale price declaration and net quantity were not in accordance with Rules and were violative of Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2009') read with Rules 2(m) and 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 resulting in issuance of notices and seizure memo produced at Annexure-B to Annexure-E.

3. The grounds for initiation of action by the respondent- authority are, firstly, that the price and the quantity expressed on the package as "MRP Rs.535.01/-", ought to have been as "MRP Rs.535/- inclusive of all taxes"; secondly, that the "Size" given before the quantity declaration was incorrect and the same ought to have been shown as "Net Quantity".

4. Justification for the aforesaid action of the respondent- Authorities is sought referring to Rule 6(1)(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which reads as under:

-5-

NC: 2026:KHC:790 WP No. 33195 of 2016 HC-KAR '' 6. Declarations to be made on every package.- (1) Every Package shall bear thereon or on label securely affixed thereto,...
(a)...
(b)....
(c). The net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity contained in the package or where the commodity is packed or sold by number, the number of the commodity contained in the package shall be mentioned. ''

5. Taking exception to description of the price and the net quantity, as made by the petitioner, a threat is posed on the petitioner of taking severe action including imprisonment. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2-Controller, who by the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 declined to accept the contentions of the petitioner resulting in dismissal of the appeal and further directed respondent- Authorities to initiate action in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that there has been complete compliance to the provisions of the Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. In that he submits that apart from showing the quantity as required under the law, additionally the petitioner has also disclosed quantity by using the term ''size". He submits that the price which was -6- NC: 2026:KHC:790 WP No. 33195 of 2016 HC-KAR disclosed indeed had the decimals. Thus he submits that there has been a substantial compliance to the said Rules in any event, which has been lost sight of by the authorities. He draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-G which is the memo of seized articles. Perusal of which would indicates that the respondent-authority while seizing the material has found the following:

''Chivas Regal was a retail whiskey 50ml size MRP. Rs.535.01/- (inclusive of all the taxes) Total 1,200 numbers.''

7. The reasons assigned in the impugned order as found at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 are as under:

''4. The Rule 6(1)(e) reads as follows:
(e) the retail sale price of the package;

Provided that for packages containing alcoholic beverages or spirituous liquor, the State Excise Laws and the rules made there under shall be applicable within the State in which it is manufactured and where the State Excise Laws and Rules made there under do not provide for declaration of retail sale price, the provisions of these rules shall apply. The bare reading of the above provision it is clear that the Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) Rules 1967 are not applicable to the imported packages in respect of sale price.

5. Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act 2009 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.

6. The said Packages are imported by M/s Pernod Ricard (1) Pvt. Ltd., c/o Veritas Logistics Pvt. Ltd., No.A-136/1, Okhla Industrial Area-2, New Delhi-110 020.

-7-

NC: 2026:KHC:790 WP No. 33195 of 2016 HC-KAR In reply the respondents further states that they are involved in import and supply of foreign liquor as permitted by the Karnataka Excise Department. The import and supply of the same is strictly carried out in accordance with the Karnataka Excise Act and various rules made there under; the supply is made in favour of Karnataka State Beverages Corporation, a State Government undertaking, who in turn distributes it among the retailers. The control and supervision of the State Excise Department over import of foreign liquor is pervading in all the areas.

All the declarations made on the labels of the impugned bottles are in accordance with the label approved by the Excise Department.

It is brought to the notice of appellants by the respondent that the price should be expressed in following manner:

'' Maximum or Max. Retail price Rs.... inclusive of all taxes or in the form MRP Rs...... incl., of all taxes, after taking into account the fraction of less than fifty paise to be rounded off to the preceding rupee and fraction of above 50 paise and up to 95 paise to be rounded off to next rupee;
Whereas, the price printed on the approved labels affixed to the bottles under seizure reads as MRP Rs.535.01 inclusive of all taxes, it should have been MRP Rs.535/- inclusive of all taxes. Further, the title, "Size" given before the quantity declaration was incorrect and the same should have been "Net Quantity".''
8. This Court do not see any reason whatsoever to sustain the order inasmuch as even according to the provisions mentioned and relied upon by the respondent-authorities, all that is required is disclosure of the "price" and the "quantity "
which has been described and disclosed, not only in the manner required under the law, but also in the manner understandable by the common man.
9. Accordingly, following: -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:790 WP No. 33195 of 2016 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 23.05.2016, notices at Annexures-B to D and Seizure Memo dated 06.12.2024 are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16