Madhya Pradesh High Court
Simran Industries vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-41220-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 41220 of 2025
(SIMRAN INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 31-10-2025
Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Agrawal -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms. Malvika Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Issue notice to the remaining respondents on payment of process fee
within seven working days by RAD mode, failing which this petition shall
stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.
Heard on the question of interim relief.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the
proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
the attachment of the property of the petitioner has been passed by the
Tehsildar as well as the property of the petitioner has been sealed by the
Tehsildar.
It is argued that the petitioner has already raised an objection before
the Executing Court in MJCR No.03/2025 and the matter is pending
consideration. He submits that he is running a bottling plant, therefore, the
authorities may have power under Section 147 of M.P.Land Revenue Code
for attachment of the property, however, the property cannot be sealed. He
has referred to provisions of Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
2 WP-41220-2025
Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Narayan Power Solutions Vs. Union
of India and another (Writ Petition (L) No.1961/2023) decided on
25.07.2023 wherein sealing of property of a running business was considered
by the Hon'ble High Court and it was held that it will effect the life and
livelihood of the petitioner and is not permissible and is violative of Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He has further placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nevada
Properties Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in
(2019) 20 SCC 119 as well as on the judgment passed by the High Court of
Orissa in the case of M/s Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., Keonjhar Vs.
Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India (CRLMC No.511 of 2025) and
connected matter decided on 22.09.2025.
The prayer for interim relief is heavily objected by the learned counsel
for the respondent No.4 who has filed reply pointing out that no document
has been filed by the petitioner regarding valid license for bottling plant,
therefore, petitioner's partnership firm does not have any locus to challenge
the action of the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar is only complying with the order of
the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of
attachment may be passed by the authorities and auction of the property can
be done but as far as sealing of the property is concerned, the same is beyond
the scope of Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The petitioner
cannot be estopped from running his bottling plant. It is argued that in case
the petition succeeds in future, then heavy loss will be caused to the
3 WP-41220-2025
petitioner which cannot be compensated.
Under these circumstances, as a matter of interim relief, the
respondents-authorities are directed to open the seal of the bottling plant and
permit the petitioner to run his bottling plant, till the next date of hearing.
However, they are at liberty to prepare the Panchnama with respect to
plants and machinery installed in the bottling plant. The petitioner should
also submit an undertaking that he will not create any third party interest
with respect to the property in question.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
