Bombay High Court
Shalikram Tulshiramji Jaiswal vs Usha Shyam Jaiswal on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
27criwp761.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2021
Shalikram Tulshiramji Jaiswal...Versus...Usha Shyam Jaiswal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. Abdul Subhan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S.Shingane, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 22/03/2022
1] Heard Mr. Subhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for respondent.
2] The petition challenges the judgment passed by
the learned Sessions Court dated 20.2.2020, whereby the
order dated 3.10.2019 passed by the learned JMFC issuing
process has been quashed and set aside.
3] Mr. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the judgment of the learned Sessions Court
suffers from an infirmity for the reason that the affidavit
dated 23.7.2008 filed by the respondent was a false affidavit,
which position has not been considered by the learned
Sessions Court. He therefore submits that the impugned
judgment needs to be quashed and set aside and the order of
issuance of process by the learned JMFC needs to be restored.
27criwp761.21.odt
4] Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for the respondent
opposes the petition and submits that the affidavit dated
23.7.2008, was sworn by the respondent in support of the
plea that one of her sons did not have any other business,
which has to be read in context of the purpose for which the
affidavit was sworn, namely the transfer of FL-II license,
which was in the name of the father-in-law of the respondent,
who was also the father of the petitioner, namely Tulshiram
Jaiswal, in a proceeding filed by Kailasbai Jaiswal. He
therefore submits that the order of the learned JMFC dated
3.10.2019 which did not consider this position has rightly
been quashed and set aside by the learned Sessions Court.
5] It is not in dispute that Kailasbai Tulshiram
Jaiswal had filed an application for transfer of the FL-II
license in the name of Tulshiram Jaiswal, in her name
entirely, which application was filed in the Excise Department
with the Collector. It is for opposing the application filed by
Kailasbai Tulshiram Jaiswal, that the respondent herein is
claimed to have sworn an affidavit on 23.7.2008, in which a
statement was made by her that she had four issues, two sons
and two daughters, the daughters being married and residing
at their matrimonial house, the sons residing with her. A
further statement was made that the younger son was having
CL-III license at New Locality Badnera, however, her elder son
namely Shailesh Shyamkumar Jaiswal had no other business,
27criwp761.21.odt
in view of which he should be given 40% share in the FL-II
CLFL TOD-III license at Railway Station Square at Badnera.
This statement that the elder son did not have any business
made in the affidavit dated 23.7.2008, is the bone of
contention as it is alleged that the elder son of the respondent
had the business of Petrol Pump and agricultural business in
his name.
6] The purpose of swearing the affidavit dated
23.7.2008 was in the context of the application made by
Kailasbai Tulshiram Jaiswal for transfer of the FL-II CLFL TOD-
III License at New Colony at Badnera Railway Station Square
and therefore, the statement made in the affidavit has to read
and understood in that context, considering which I do not find
any falsity in the same. It is also material to note that there is
no statutory requirement either in the Maharashtra Country
Liquor Rules or Foreign Liquor Rules or any notification
thereunder brought to my notice which would indicate that
there is requirement that the affidavit be filed in a particular
form for the transfer of liquor license or for that matter for
claiming a share therein, which being the situation, in my
considered opinion, the judgment rendered by the learned
Sessions Court cannot be faulted with. I do not see any merit in
the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE Digitally sign byRAJESH
Rvjalit VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:22.03.2022 19:47
