Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Lizzy Mathew Philip Vs. the Excise Commissioner

Lizzy Mathew Philip vs The Excise Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 27, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1122995

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lizzy Mathew Philip

Respondent

The Excise Commissioner

Excerpt

.....and on the strength of the same she has been conducting a three star classified hotel by name 'hotel the landmark' in kayamkulam. the petitioner used to go abroad with her husband and therefore, she decided to form a private limited company along with her husband. for incorporating a private limited company in the name and style of 'rnl gardens hotels (p) ltd'. the petitioner submitted ext.p2 application as prior sanction in tune with the provisions under rule 19 of the foreign liquor rules is required for that purpose. it is still pending. the short prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the first respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned government pleader.3. the contention of the petitioner is that w.p.(c) no. 2586 of 2014 2 she has filed ext.p2 application seeking prior sanction from the first respondent in tune with the provisions under rules 19 of the foreign liquor rules for incorporating a private limited company in the name and style 'rnl gardens hotel (p) ltd. it is the further contention that the first respondent is competent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. in the circumstances, considering the contentions and without making any observation as to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to get the sanction for the same this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider ext.p2 application and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in case, he is the authority competent to pass orders thereon. sd/- c.t.ravikumar,judge. dlk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE27H DAY OF JANUARY20147TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2586 of 2014 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- LIZZY MATHEW PHILIP, AGED58YEARS W/O MATHEW PHILIP, PROPRIETRESS, HOTEL THE LANDMARK KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM69503 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2701-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2586 of 2014 (W) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAR CLASSIFICATION CERTAIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM, GOVT OF INDIA EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED2703-2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

NO XC6-18473/11 DATED0309-2011 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

NO XC7-9998/09/R. DIS DATED3103-2012 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

NO XC6-19501/12/D.DIS DATED2707-2012 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2586 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is holding a FL-3 license with No.A-34 and on the strength of the same she has been conducting a three star classified hotel by name 'Hotel The Landmark' in Kayamkulam. The petitioner used to go abroad with her husband and therefore, she decided to form a private limited company along with her husband. For incorporating a private limited company in the name and style of 'RNL Gardens Hotels (P) Ltd'. the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application as prior sanction in tune with the provisions under Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules is required for that purpose. It is still pending. The short prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the first respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that W.P.(C) No. 2586 of 2014 2 she has filed Ext.P2 application seeking prior sanction from the first respondent in tune with the provisions under Rules 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules for incorporating a private limited company in the name and style 'RNL Gardens Hotel (P) Ltd. It is the further contention that the first respondent is competent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. In the circumstances, considering the contentions and without making any observation as to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to get the sanction for the same this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in case, he is the authority competent to pass orders thereon. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE. dlk

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial