Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the authenticity and execution of documents for handing over a substantial stock of liquor to respondent 5, a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., issued a bailable warrants of ₹25,000/- against the respondent 5 and their representatives for failure to appear before the Court despite prior notice.
The instant matter arises out of a dispute involving the alleged handing over of liquor stock by the petitioner to respondent 5 under six Panchnamas dated 31-03-2024 and 01-04-2024. A crucial issue pertained to whether the stock was in fact received by Respondent 5 or not.
The Court noted conflicting statements by the Manager of Respondent 5. Initially, he claimed absence during preparation of the Panchnamas, however, later he altered his stance and denied that any stock had been received. The Court noted that “he changed his stand and stated that he was very much there, however no stock has been handed over by the petitioner to respondent 5.” The Court noted that the signatures of Respondent 5’s representatives were absent from the Panchnamas, which raises the question of the authenticity and effectiveness of the stock transfer.
The Court noted that the Excise Department, vide letter dated 08-05-2024, had directed respondent 5 to deposit the deficit excise duty and pursuant to this, respondent 5 deposited ₹6.50/- lakhs via three e-challans.
The Court expressed concern over the potential misappropriation of stock and emphasised that the issue is “not a simplicitor contractual dispute.” The Court observed that the respondent/State must account for the disposition of the liquor stock if it was not handed to Respondent 5.
The Court noted that the respondent submitted a joint compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, annexing a cheque of ₹25,00,000/- in favor of the petitioner. The Court questioned the settlement and stated that “why such a huge amount of ₹25,00,000/- has been paid to the petitioner,” especially when respondent 5 continued to deny receiving the stock.
The Court further noted the conduct of respondent 5’s counsel Senior Advocate Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah during the hearing, i.e. creating ruckus in the Court by shouting at top of his voice. The Court stated that “we are of the view that it needs to be reconsidered as it appears that he does not deserve to be a Senior Advocate.”
The Court directed the Registrar General to place this matter before the Full Court to reconsider the designation of Shri Ruprah as Senior Advocate. Until further orders, the Court directed that “Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, Senior Advocate, shall not appear before this Bench.” The Court further directed to preserve the live-streamed recording of the proceedings from 07-04-2025.
The Court issued a bailable warrants of ₹25,000/- against respondent 5 and their representatives who failed to appear despite directions with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to execute the warrants.
[Maa Narmada Associates v. State of M.P., WP No. 39118 of 2024, Decided on 07-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Rahul Diwaker, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Navtej Singh Ruprah, Counsel for the Respondent 5
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General for State, Counsel for the State
