TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay back in the year 2014 by the impugned endorsement and the same has been upheld by the Tribunal. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - WRIT PETITION No.40411 OF 2015(EXCISE) - - - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. G.K. Bhat, Advocate For The Respondent : Mrs. Niloufer Akbar, AGA for R1 to R3 Mr. C.M. Rajaneesh, Advocate for R4 ORDER The petitioner Ganapathi, son of Ramachandra Desai, has filed this writ petition in this Court on 18-09-2015, aggrieved by the endorsement dated 11-06-2014 issued by the respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, as also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 15-09-2015 Annexure `H , upholding the said endorsement. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 Vasudev son of Ramachandra Desai has explained the position in para 4 as under : 4. Petitioner is trying to present himself as a hero by falsely stating that he is the one who brought the 4th respondent to Bangalore and made him to settle down in life. The truth is otherwise. The petitioner and the 4th respondent together were running several hotels in partnership. By the year 2002, the petitioner wanted the business of all other partnerships to be left to him to run them with his family members, in consideration of which the petitioner was agreed that the business of only M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant shall be given to the 4th respondent. However when it came to signing the reconstruction deeds of partnership, petitioner was not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of CL-9 licence under the name and style of M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant, Bangalore, with the respondent No.4 and a nominal partnership share to the extent of 2% was kept for him in the partnership deed of 1st April, 2002 at his request, but that does not deprive the respondent No.4 herein to get the CL-9 licence transferred in the name of the partnership firm, which has been done in accordance with the relevant rules and the documents and application duly signed by the petitioner himself. 6. Learned Government Counsel also supported the contention of the respondent. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner cannot lay a challenge to the transfer of licence in favour of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
