Uttarakhand High Court
B.K. Aqua Enterprises vs M/S Shripati Beverages Pvt. Ltd on 4 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 405 of 2023
4th September, 2025
B.K. Aqua Enterprises. ........Appellant
Versus
M/s Shripati Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
and others. ......... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Mandal and Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1/2 of C.P.C.
has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2023 passed
by learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramnagar, District
Nainital in Original Suit No.106 of 2022, M/s Shripati
Beverages Private Limited Vs. M/s B.K. Acqua
Enterprises and others.
2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that
respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction,
restraining the appellant/defendant no.1 from interfering
in the functioning and possession of the respondent
no.1/plaintiff, except as per the conditions mentioned in
their written agreements. It has also been prayed in the
suit that all licenses related to production in the plant,
which is closed since 04.10.2022, may be restored and
appellant/defendant no.1 may be ordered to start
production in the plant as before, besides other reliefs.
Alongwith the suit, application for temporary injunction
was also filed. Learned trial Court, after hearing the
parties, directed the appellant/defendant no.1 not to
interfere in the peaceful possession of the respondent
no.1/plaintiff and also prohibited the appellant/
defendant no.1 from interfering in running and
functioning of the plant.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the findings returned by the trial Court regarding prima
facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss
have been held in favour of the respondent no.1/ plaintiff
totally on perverse and non-existing grounds. In support
of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that a bare perusal of the Clause Nos.5, 10, 11
& 12 of the registered deed dated 30.10.2021 would
reveal that the repair and maintenance of all the
machinery located in the plant, purchase of raw material
and responsibility of any dispute whatsoever, including
marketing and sales, was fastened upon the appellant, as
he was having the franchise of the brand 'Oxyrich'. He
submits that, as per Clause No.8, appellant/defendant
no.1 was permitted to use the plant for production of his
registered brand. He further submits that, as per the
registered deed, respondent no.1/plaintiff was given only
the right of marketing.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
no.1 submits that, after execution of the aforesaid
registered deed, some dispute arose between the parties
and, thereafter, parties executed another deed, which
was not registered. He submits that, as per another
deed, some conditions of the registered deed, which was
executed earlier, were clarified and some new conditions
were added.
6. At this, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that conditions of the registered agreement
cannot be altered by executing subsequent unregistered
agreement. In order to buttress his argument, learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Anthony Vs. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and others, reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 394, S. Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs. M.
Venugopal Pillai and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC
104, Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai
Bhairu Mohite (Dead) Through Lrs (2008) 6 SCC 745. The
Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the well known principle
embodied under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per
the prayer of the suit, respondent no.1/plaintiff has
sought a prayer to direct the appellant/defendant no.1
not to interfere in the functioning of the Plant except as
per the conditions of the lease dead. Another prayer has
been sought for a direction to appellant/defendant no.1
to renew his license and start production from it as
earlier, since the plant is closed from 04.10.2022.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the entire material
available on record, this Court, prima facie, is of the view
that learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction
while passing the order under challenge, inasmuch as, it
has relied on conditions mentioned in the unregistered
agreement in complete disregard of registered agreement
dated 30.10.2021, which is against the well known
principle embodied under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
FSSAI License has expired way back in the month of
October, 2022 and appellant has not applied for renewal
of his license and, despite this fact, even today,
respondent no.1 is manufacturing and marketing the
mineral water in the name & style of 'Oxyrich' Natural
Mineral Water with the FSSAI License, which was allotted
to the appellant.
9. This is a very serious issue, which involves
health of the general public. Immediate and decisive
action is not just necessary, it is a moral obligation to
protect the health and safety of the public. Neglecting
this matter could lead to long-term consequences that
strain our healthcare system and endanger countless
lives. Public health should never be compromised, and
this issue demands urgent attention from all concerned
authorities.
10. Though, State of Uttarakhand is not a party
respondent in this Appeal, however, Mr. P.S. Bisht,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, who is
present in Court, is directed to communicate this order to
the Competent Authority in FSSAI and the District
Magistrate, Nainital, who would inquire as to whether
even after expiry of the license, mineral water is being
manufactured and marketed by respondent no.1 in the
name of 'Oxyrich' Natural Mineral Water, bearing FSSAI
Lic. No.12620007000082, CM/L No.8300136914, IS-
13428. They shall also enquire as to who has applied for
the license, which was granted in the name of the
appellant. The report with regard to the aforesaid facts
shall be placed before the Court, within two weeks.
11. Today, a copy of FSSAI license dated
20.08.2025 granted by Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India in favour of respondent no.1 has been
handed over to the Court by learned counsel for the
respondent no.1, which is taken on record.
12. List on 25.09.2025.
13. Till then, effect & operation of the impugned
order dated 17.03.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil
Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Original Suit
No.106 of 2022, shall remain stayed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.09.2025
Arpan
