[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited vs Maa Sheetla Distributors Private ... on 17 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1099-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
17TH FEBRUARY, 2026
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 33 OF 2026
Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited.
...Appellant
Versus
Maa Sheetla Distributors Private Limited and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Abhay Chattopadhya and
Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
3. Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT :
(per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Shri Abhay Chattopadhya, learned counsel for the
appellant, Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 & Shri C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against
the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2026 passed in
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 51/2026, whereby the learned Single
Judge, while entertaining the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by
respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'),
2026:UHC:1099-DB
challenging a notice dated 10.12.2025 issued by the In-charge
Excise Officer, has restrained the respondents from taking any
further action on basis thereof, and has issued various other
directions also. The operative part of the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 08.01.2026 is as under :-
"11. Until further orders, the Official-respondents are
restrained from taking any further action on the impugned
notice dated 10.12.2025, annexure no. 1 as well as on the
application of respondent no. 3 dated 10.11.2025.
Simultaneously, during this period Official-respondents are
directed to take decision on earlier notice dated 27.10.2025,
issued by the Excise Commissioner, which is annexed as
Annexure 19, and place before this Court the decision as
such on the next date."
3. The order of the learned Single Judge aforesaid
dated 08.01.2026 was challenged by the appellant
(respondent no. 3 to the Writ Petition) before the Supreme
Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3077/2026.
The Supreme Court, by order dated 23.01.2026, declined to
interfere with the impugned order, in view of availability of the
remedy of intra-court appeal to the appellant herein. The
Supreme Court, however, observed that, since the order of
this Court, impugned before the Supreme Court, prima facie,
affects valuable rights of the appellant, therefore, in case any
appeal is preferred by the appellant, the same shall be
considered on merits. The order of the Supreme Court dated
23.01.2026 is as follows :-
"1. In view of availability of an intra-court appeal before
the High Court of Uttarakhand, we are not inclined to
2026:UHC:1099-DB
interfere with the impugned interim order of the High Court;
hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
2. If an appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered
on merits. We make this observation because the impugned
interim order does, prima facie, seem to affect a valuable
right of the petitioner.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
4. The appellant, thereafter, filed the instant intra-
court appeal, and, in view of the directions issued by the
Supreme Court, it has to be decided on merits.
5. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of
brewing, packaging, distributing, marketing and selling of
alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in India. By an
agreement dated 20.03.2021, between the appellant and the
petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as distributor for four
brands of beer manufactured by it for the State of
Uttarakhand. The said agreement was for a period of 12
months. According to the appellant, the Distributor
Agreement was extended from time to time, on basis of
addenda(s) executed between the parties. There exists a
BWFL-2B license in the name of the petitioner, and which is
valid up to 31st March, 2026. There is dispute between the
parties, as to whether the said license is exclusively in the
name of the petitioner, or it was a common license issued in
favour of both the parties. In due course of time, it seems
that the relationship between the appellant and the petitioner
2026:UHC:1099-DB
got strained, on account of alleged non-fulfillment of the
respective obligations by the parties, under the Distributor
Agreement and the license. It is alleged by the appellant that
the petitioner defaulted in complying with its financial
obligations, as well as statutory compliances, in respect of
VAT, Excise and other statutory levies, and for which, in view
of the extant Excise Policy, the appellant-company was also
threatened with evil consequences.
6. It appears that, in view of the ongoing dispute
between the appellant and the petitioner, supplies and
consumption of popular brands of beer of the appellant-
company in the State also got affected, resulting in loss of
revenue to the State Government also. Consequently, on
16.09.2025, respondent no. 3-the Excise Commissioner,
Uttarakhand sent a joint notice to the appellant and the
petitioner, highlighting the said fact. In the said notice, the
Excise Commissioner, in order to make the appellant also
accountable for the default, relied on Rule 21.4 of the Excise
Policy Rules, 2025, which stipulates that "the concerned
manufacturing unit shall be responsible for the action taken by
the duly authorized sellers in relation to the license and every
work done by the authorized seller/ representative shall be
deemed to be done by the manufacturing unit."
2026:UHC:1099-DB
7. The notice cautioned the parties that, in case the
situation is not remedied, then action would be taken by
cancelling the license, as per Rules, and putting both the
appellant, as well as the petitioner, in the blacklist, and
debarring them from obtaining excise licenses.
8. According to the appellant, the petitioner still failed
to make payment of the admitted outstanding dues towards
the appellant-company and, consequently, the appellant
invoked the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner to the
appellant, so as to liquidate its dues. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition (M/B) No. 828/2025 before this Court, challenging the
invocation of bank guarantees by the appellant. The said Writ
Petition was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
26.09.2025, with liberty to approach the Commercial Court,
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed Case No. 76/2025 before
Commercial Court at Haldwani, under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said petition was
dismissed by the Commercial Court, Haldwani for want of
territorial jurisdiction, as, vide Clause No. 23 of the Distributor
Agreement, the parties had agreed that Commercial Court,
Bangalore alone would have jurisdiction for purposes of
arbitration between them.
2026:UHC:1099-DB
9. The petitioner, on 08.10.2025, filed another
application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru (registered
as Com.A.A.No.439/2025). The petitioner alleged that the
2025 addenda was a result of fraud. The Arbitration Petition
was ultimately dismissed by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru
by order dated 14.10.2025.
10. The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice
dated 27.10.2025, issued by respondent no. 3, by filing Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 262/2025, but the said Writ Petition was
dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.11.2025, observing
that it is premature, as it was directed only against a show-
cause notice.
11. According to the appellant, by a notice dated
06.11.2025, it terminated the Distributor Agreement between
the parties. Thereafter, on 10.11.2025, the appellant filed an
application before respondent no. 3, intimating him of the
termination of the Distributor Agreement, and prayed for
cancellation of existing BWFL-2B license, and for issuing new
BWFL-2B license, exclusively in the name of the appellant-
company, in pursuance of its online application dated
01.10.2025. As the prayer made in the application has
2026:UHC:1099-DB
significance, in view of the contentions advanced on behalf of
the appellant, the prayer made in the application is reproduced
below :-
"a. the cancellation of existing B.W.F.L.2B License of Maa
Sheetla Distributor Pvt Ltd (Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd)
(Application Ref No. UTK2025035501) valid up to 31.03.2026
on or after 21.11.2026; and
b. obtaining New B.W.F.L.2B License under ABI's name by
expediting ABI's Online Application No. UTK2025040622
dated 01.10.2025."
12. It appears that the In-charge Excise Officer-BWFL-
2B, on basis of the application submitted by the appellant for
cancelling the existing license in favour of the petitioner, and
for grant of fresh license exclusively in its name, issued the
impugned notice dated 10.12.2025 to the petitioner, requiring
it to submit its reply, with regard to certain points mentioned
in the letter accompanying the notice. This led to the filing of
the Writ Petition by the petitioner, wherein the learned Single
Judge has passed the order dated 08.01.2026, which is
impugned herein.
13. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant, has made various submissions, but the main
submissions alone are being noted, in view of the order
proposed to be passed.
2026:UHC:1099-DB
14. The main contention of learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has gone beyond
the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that
the Writ Petition was directed only against the notice issued to
the petitioner, requiring it to submit its reply on the points
flagged in the enclosed letter, and, at best, the same could
have been quashed, but that would not result in rejection of
any of the prayers made by the appellant, vide its application
dated 10.11.2025. Consequently, the order of the learned
Single Judge, restraining the department from taking any
action on the basis of the application of the appellant, which
also contained the prayer for grant of a new license,
exclusively in its name, is beyond the relief claimed. It is
submitted that the petitioner had made several attempts in
the past to obtain injunction order against the appellant-
company, but which has repeatedly been refused. It is alleged
that, in such circumstances, the order of the learned Single
Judge not only amounts to granting a relief, which was not
prayed for, but to which the petitioner was not at all entitled
to, particularly in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of
the said submission, it has also been submitted that, after
issuance of the impugned notice dated 10.12.2025, which was
impugned by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, the petitioner
2026:UHC:1099-DB
filed an amendment application in pending C.A.A. No.
507/2025 before Commercial Court, Bengaluru, and along with
which, another application under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also filed, praying for
mandatory injunction against the appellant, restraining it from
discontinuing supply of goods to it, as per the Distributor
Agreement and the addenda, and also for injuncting the
appellant from appointing another distributor for the
distribution of beer in the State of Uttarakhand till the dispute
is adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is stated that no
such relief has been granted by the Commercial Court,
Bengaluru to the petitioner till date. It is submitted that, in
such circumstances, the relief granted to the petitioner, by the
learned Single Judge, is wholly against the settled principles of
law, and an ex facie illegal exercise of the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge,
while granting the interim order, has fixed the case in the
week commencing 06.04.2026, meaning thereby that, despite
the cancellation of the Distributor Agreement, and even after
expiry of the life of the existing license on 31.03.2026, the
prayer of the appellant, contained in its application dated
10.11.2025, would not be considered. It is submitted that the
2026:UHC:1099-DB
Distributor Agreement, even if assumed to be in existence,
and the license valid up to 31.03.2026, the same would not
prevent the consideration of the request of the appellant-
company, at least after the expiry of the validity period of the
license, but in view of the interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the same would not be possible. In other words,
the submission is that, by means of the order passed, though
interim, a final relief has been granted. It is further submitted
that there was no material on record for the learned Single
Judge to hold that the appellant and the Excise Department
were hand in gloves.
16. Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein), countering the
aforesaid submissions, submitted that the license was not in
the joint name of the appellant and the petitioner, but
exclusively in the name of the writ petitioner. In order to
buttress his submission, he has invited our attention towards
the license, which, according to him, has been issued
exclusively in the name of the petitioner, and name of the
appellant has only been mentioned to indicate the name of the
manufacturer, whose products were to be stored at the
warehouse. He further contented that the notice dated
10.12.2025 was issued by In-charge Excise Officer, whereas
2026:UHC:1099-DB
he has no power whatsoever to hold any inquiry on basis of
the application of the appellant dated 10.11.2025. He also
vehemently submitted that there was no direction to In-charge
Excise Officer, by respondent no. 3, to hold any inquiry. The
impugned notice dated 10.12.2025 was issued by the In-
charge Excise Officer only on the direction of the Excise
Officer, Nainital, who himself was not having any jurisdiction in
the matter. It is, thus, contended that the impugned notice
was wholly without jurisdiction, and, consequently, it gave rise
to independent cause of action to assail the same by means of
the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
contended that it was the appellant, which committed breach
of its contractual obligations.
17. We have considered the rival submissions, and
perused the material on record.
18. Indisputably, the relief claimed in the Writ Petition
was for quashing the notice dated 10.12.2025, issued by the
In-charge Excise Officer, on the ground that it is without
jurisdiction, and for restraining the respondent-authorities
from taking any coercive action against the petitioner's BWFL-
2B license, stated to be valid up to 31.03.2026, or on the
basis of the application of the appellant dated 10.11.2025.
2026:UHC:1099-DB
19. At this stage, even if it is accepted that In-charge
Excise Officer was not having jurisdiction to seek any
information from the petitioner, and notice dated 10.12.2025,
issued by him, was without jurisdiction, it would not have any
adverse effect on the prayers made by the appellant, in its
application dated 10.11.2025. It has also not been disputed
before us that, after the appellant filed application dated
10.11.2025, the petitioner filed an amendment application in
pending C.A.A. No. 507/2025, along with another application
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
dated 17.12.2025, praying for grant of a mandatory
injunction, directing the appellant to continue supplying goods,
in terms of the Distributor Agreement dated 20.03.2021,
extended by way of addenda dated 27.05.2022, 18.11.2024 &
26.08.2025, till the dispute between the parties is adjudicated
by the Arbitral Tribunal. So far, no order of injunction has
been granted in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of the
said application.
20. The second part of the prayer in the Writ Petition,
for restraining any action being taken on basis of the
application of the appellant dated 10.11.2025, would result in
compelling the appellant to continue the supplies to the
petitioner, despite the fact that, on basis of the same prayer
2026:UHC:1099-DB
made in the application, filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, no relief has been
granted to the petitioner so far. The said fact was also a
material fact, which ought to have been disclosed in the Writ
Petition, and which, if disclosed, would, in all likelihood, not
have resulted in passing of the order by the learned Single
Judge.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly
submitted that the effect of the order of the learned Single
Judge is that, despite the Distributor Agreement having been
cancelled, and the validity period of the license being only up
to 31.03.2026, even the second prayer of the appellant, for
grant of a fresh license for the next year, would not be
considered. The question, as to whether the appellant is
entitled, as of right, to be granted fresh license for the next
year, would be beyond the scope of inquiry in the present
intra-court appeal, and, therefore, we desist from examining
the said aspect, lest it may prejudice the parties.
22. The cause of action, for the petitioner to approach
the writ Court, was issuance of notice dated 10.12.2025 by the
In-charge Excise Officer, on the ground that it was alleged to
be without jurisdiction. Even if, despite previous litigations, it
is held to constitute an independent cause of action, it would
2026:UHC:1099-DB
not entitle the petitioner to claim any further relief under the
garb thereof, as were claimed, and granted by the interim
order by learned Single Judge.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course
of hearing of the appeal, very fairly conceded to the above
legal position. He submitted that he would be content, in case
the notice dated 10.12.2025 is quashed, having been issued
by In-charge Excise Officer, who was not competent to issue
the same.
24. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, submitted that the notice would not be without
jurisdiction, as it was issued on the direction of respondent
no.3, who is, admittedly, competent to consider the
application of the appellant dated 10.11.2025. However, we
could not find any material on record to indicate that the
notice was issued on the direction of respondent no. 3. On the
other hand, the notice itself recites that it was issued on the
direction of the Excise Officer, Nainital, and not respondent
no.3.
25. In such view of the matter, we agree with the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice
2026:UHC:1099-DB
in question may not be strictly within the power of the In-
Charge Excise Officer.
26. At this stage, Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant, submitted that if the notice dated
10.12.2025 is being quashed, it may be clarified that it would,
in no manner, affect the proceeding pending before
respondent no. 3, on basis of the application of the appellant
dated 10.11.2025.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he
has no objection in case the said aspect is clarified.
28. Having regard to the above discussion, we quash the
notice dated 10.12.2025, solely on the ground that it was not
within the competence of the In-charge Excise Officer to issue
the same. However, our order should not be construed as
expression of any opinion, with regard to the maintainability of
the application dated 10.11.2025, or any inquiry or action,
that is required to be taken on basis thereof, by respondent
no. 3. Respondent no. 3 shall be free to hold such
proceedings, as may be warranted, and for such purpose, he
shall also be free to seek whatever information, from
whichever party, he deems fit.
2026:UHC:1099-DB
29. Counsel for the parties have agreed that Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 51/2026 may also be, accordingly, finally
disposed of.
30. The instant intra-court appeal, and, resultantly, Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 51/2026, stand disposed of accordingly.
31. All pending applications also stand disposed of
accordingly.
______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 17th February, 2026
Rahul
RAHUL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e61
bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
PRAJAPATI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192FC
AD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898,
cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI
Date: 2026.02.19 18:53:44 +05'30'
