Vihaan Direct Selling India Pvt ...

vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2019

Karnataka High Court

Vihaan Direct Selling India Pvt ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2019
Author: B.Veerappa
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

W.P.Nos.50169-50175/2014 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

1. VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 043,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
VIJAY SARATHI.

2. VIJAY SARATHI
S/O LATE Y.V.SURYANARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
DIRECTOR,
VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5 AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGLORE-560 043.

3. RAJESH WAHAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE P.SURENDRANATH,
MANAGER (CUSTOMER SUPPORT),
VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5 AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2

2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,

OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGLORE-560 043.

4. RAGHUNANDAN SUBRAMANYAM
S/O D.NAGAMANI NAIDU,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/184763294/ 1

 Vihaan Direct Selling India Pvt ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2019

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

MANAGER (CUSTOMER SUPPORT),
VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5 AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGLORE-560 043.

5. K.P.SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE N.K.PREMARAJAN,
SENIOR EXECUTIVE (CUSTOMER SUPPORT),
VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5 AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGLORE-560 043.

6. UMESH K
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE UNNIKRISHNAN,
ASST.MANAGER (ACCOUNTS),
VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5 AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGLORE-560 043.

7. R.M.SATHYAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O T.RAMASWAMAIAH,
3

SENIOR EXECUTIVE (CUSOTMER SUPPORT)

VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING INDIA PVT., LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.5 AC-709, PARK LANDING BUILDING,
2ND BLOCK, HRBR EXTENSION,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGLORE-560 043.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHAKER, ADV., FOR

M/S SANDESH J.CHOUTA ASSTS., ADVS.,)

AND:

1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/184763294/ 2

 Vihaan Direct Selling India Pvt ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2019

JAWAHAR BALBHAVAN,
FIRST FLOOR, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG,
CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI-400004.

2. ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING -3

(CRIME BRANCH),
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
UNIT -XI POLICE COMMISIONER'S
OFFICE COMPOUND,
ANNEX-1 BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
OPP.MAHATMA PHULE MARKET,
MUMBAI-400 001.

3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE MUMBAI,
OPPOSITE CRAWFORD MARKET,
DR D N ROAD, FLORT,
MUMBAI-400001.

4. CAFE COFFEE DAY,

DIVISIONAL OF AMALGAMATED BEAN-COFFEE
TRADING CO., LTD. , (ADCTCL),
NO.23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
4

BANGALORE-560001,
BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
VENU MADHAVAN.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI BALANIKIT, ADV., FOR

SRI ARVIND KAMATH K., ADV., FOR R4
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED THROUGH
HAND SUMMONS V/O DT: 31.10.2014
ISSUE OF NOTICE TO R1 STANDS DEFERRED)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER

ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 8.10.2014
EXHIBITED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT
THE R-2 TO 4 TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE
INSTRUCTION BASED ON WHICH THE R-4 HAD
EXHIBITED THE NOTICE DATED 8.10.2014.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/184763294/ 3

 Vihaan Direct Selling India Pvt ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2019

The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated
08.10.2014 exhibited by respondent No.4 at the various outlets owned by it on the basis of oral
instruction given by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Sri Balanikit, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Arvind Kamath K., learned counsel for respondent
No.4 fairly submits that respondent No.4 had displayed the said notice in its cafes/outlets solely due
to the oral instructions of respondent No.2 on 08.10.2014, which respondent No.4 was under a
bonafide impression that it is binding on it. Respondent No.4 has already withdrawn the display of
the impugned notice from all its cafes/outlets with effect from 05.11.2014. Therefore, writ petitions
do not survive for consideration.

3. The said submission is placed on record.

4. In view of the above, the prayer sought for by the petitioners would not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE PB

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/184763294/ 4