Uttarakhand High Court
Radhika Shastry & Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 16 May, 2025
2025:UHC:4057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2883 OF 2019
Radhika Shastry & Another ...Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another ...Respondents
With
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2805 OF 2019
Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited & Another ..Applicants
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & Other ...Respondents
With
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2806 OF 2019
Parthasarthy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. ...Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Another ...Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned senior counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipin Painuli, learned AGA, for State.
Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. These three Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, viz.,
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2883 of 2019, No. 2805
of 2019, and No. 2806 of 2019, have been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the
applications arise from a common factual matrix and involve
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
overlapping legal issues, they are being decided by this common
order.
2. The applicants in these connected matters are Ms. Radhika
Shastry and Mr. Sridar Iyengar, both serving as independent and
non-executive directors of Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India
Limited, along with Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another, as well as Parthasarthy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors.
The respondents include the State of Uttarakhand through the
Principal Secretary of the Department of Food and Civil Supply
Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun, Inspector Legal Metrology,
and the Controller/Director of Legal Metrology for the
Government of Uttarakhand.
3. The facts leading to the present application are as follows.
On 18.06.2019, the Legal Metrology Inspector inspected "Bird
Song", a multi-cuisine restaurant situated within Club Mahindra
Binsar Valley Resort, which is operated by the applicant
company. During the inspection, a 250 ml can of Pepsi was
allegedly sold at Rs. 99.12, which was above the maximum retail
price (MRP) of Rs. 25 printed on the can. Based on this
transaction, an inspection report was prepared, and subsequently,
a show cause notice was issued to the applicant company.
4. In response, the company submitted detailed replies dated
08.07.2019 and 31.07.2019, contending that the resort, including
its restaurant, functions as part of an integrated hospitality
service. It was asserted that the sale of beverages within the resort
premises forms an incidental component of the composite service
rendered to guests, and therefore, does not fall within the purview
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 or the Packaged Commodities
Rules, 2011.
5. Following the inspection, notices were served to the
company. Upon receiving what the authorities deemed an
"unsatisfactory explanation" from the applicants, a complaint was
filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. The
magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the matter and issued
a summoning order against the applicants.
6. The arguments advanced by learned counsel have been
heard,and the records perused.
7. On behalf of the applicants, it is contended at the outset
thatthe complaint fails to establish any statutory violation under
the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, or the Rules framed thereunder.
Rule 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,
2011, under which cognizance has been taken, is a residuary
provision prescribing punishment only for contraventions where
no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the Rules.
8. The summoning order does not identify which provision of
the Rules has been contravened, nor does it explain how the
transaction in question, a sale within a resort restaurant, falls
within the ambit of the Act. The absence of any reference to a
specific violation demonstrates non-application of mind and
renders the proceedings liable to be quashed.
9. Another contention which the learned counsel for the
applicants stressed upon is that the doctrine of mala fides and
abuse of process bars the complaint. Reliance was place on
Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement Federation of Hotels and
Restaurants Association of India vs. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
97 stating that, the Inspector, Legal Metrology, proceeded with
the complaint despite being fully aware of the settled legal
position under the Federation judgment, which explicitly
excludes hotels and restaurants from the purview of the Legal
Metrology Act.
10. The deliberate disregard for binding precedent, coupled
with the suppression of the company's replies, which squarely
relied on the Federation judgment, demonstrates a malicious
intent to harass the applicants. This Hon'ble Court has
consistently held that criminal proceedings initiated with oblique
motives and in defiance of settled law constitute an abuse of
process and must be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
11. Proceeding further, the learned counsel submitted that the
complaint is devoid of any averments demonstrating the
applicants' culpability as directors. Section 49 of the LM Act
imposes liability on the person in charge of the company's
business only if the offence was committed with their consent,
connivance, or due to their negligence. The complaint makes no
such allegation against the applicants, who are independent and
non-executive directors with no involvement in the day-to-day
operations of the resort or its restaurant. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005) 8
SCC 89 has held that conclusory assertions lacking material
particulars without specific allegations of active involvement are
insufficient to prosecute directors. The complaint, being entirely
silent on this aspect, is legally unsustainable against the
applicants.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
12. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the
summoning order is in direct contravention of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, which mandates
that a Magistrate must apply a judicial mind before summoning
an accused. The order dated 05.12.2019 is a mechanical
reproduction of the complaint's allegations, without any
independent assessment of whether a prima facie case exists. The
Trial Court failed to consider the legal submissions made by the
company in its replies, which were crucial to determining the
applicability of the LM Act. Such a perfunctory exercise of
jurisdiction vitiates the summoning order and warrants its setting
aside.
13. The learned counsel then proceeded to argue that
procedural irregularities vitiate the proceedings. The Trial Court
did not conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. despite the
accused residing outside its territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore,
the complainant was not examined on oath under Section 200
Cr.P.C., which is a mandatory safeguard against frivolous
complaints. These lapses render the proceedings illegal and
unsustainable.
14. The learned advocate would submit that the complaint is an
attempt to criminalise what is, at best, a civil or regulatory
dispute. The alleged overcharging, if at all, does not constitute a
criminal offence under the LM Act, given the inapplicability of
the Act to resort restaurants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 has
cautioned against using criminal proceedings to arm-twist parties
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
in commercial matters. The present complaint is a classic
example of such misuse and warrants quashing to uphold judicial
integrity.
15. In light of the above, the applicants pray for the quashing of
the criminal complaint and the summoning order to prevent
miscarriage of justice and abuse of the legal process. The
proceedings are devoid of merit, contrary to settled law, and
unsustainable both on factual and legal grounds.
16. Countering the petitioner's claim, it is argued on behalf of
the respondent State and Legal Metrology Department that the
present proceedings are legally valid and justified. They contend
that the transaction in question constitutes a clear violation of the
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Packaged Commodities
Rules, 2011. The sale of the Pepsi can at a price exceeding the
Maximum Retail Price (MRP) falls squarely within the definition
of "retail sale" under Rule 2(l) of the Rules.
17. The respondents argue that the statutory provisions clearly
cover the transaction, citing the comprehensive definition of "pre-
packaged commodity" under Section 2(j) of the Act. The Pepsi
can, sold at Bird Song restaurant, undisputedly qualifies as a pre-
packaged commodity with a declared MRP. Rule 18(2) of the
Packaged Commodities Rules imposes an absolute prohibition
against selling any pre-packaged commodity above MRP, with
no exception for hospitality establishments.
18. The respondents sought to demonstrate that the Federation
judgment relied upon by the applicants is inapplicable. That case
dealt specifically with packaged drinking water in the context of
composite contracts in hotel settings.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
19. The respondents emphasized that the present matter
pertains to the sale of carbonated beverages, wherein the service
component is negligible. They submit that judicial precedents
mandate an evaluation of the dominant nature of the transaction
to determine its legal character. In the instant case, the sale in
question was effected to a walk-in customer at the restaurant,
unconnected to any bundled hospitality service or composite
hotel package. It is thus a standalone retail transaction, squarely
falling within the regulatory ambit of the Legal Metrology
framework.
20. The respondent further distinguishes the Taj Kerala Hotels
& Resorts Limited vs. Union of India (2013) 3 KLT 426 case,
highlighting that it involved room service to in-house guests. In
contrast, the present transaction was a standalone retail sale to a
non-resident customer. The 2017 Amendment to the Legal
Metrology Rules removed ambiguity about the Act's
applicability to hospitality sectors, affirming that such sales are
regulated.
21. The respondents present a robust argument on directors'
liability, relying on Section 49 of the LM Act, which explicitly
includes all directors within its ambit, with no exemption for
independent or non-executive directors. They argue that the
complaint contains specific allegations regarding the directors'
responsibility to ensure compliance with the Act. A statutory
presumption of liability is created by Section 49(1), and the
burden shifts to the directors to prove that the offence occurred
without their knowledge or despite due diligence. The applicants
have not discharged this burden at this preliminary stage.
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
22. Board resolutions reveal the applicants' participation in
approving pricing policies, including ratifying the menu with
inflated prices. The applicants have not demonstrated any
concrete steps to ensure legal compliance, despite their statutory
obligations.
23. The respondents defend the summoning order dated
05.12.2019, asserting that the Ld. The Chief Judicial Magistrate
applied the judicial mind appropriately. They emphasise that at
the summoning stage, the court only needs to determine whether
a prima facie case exists, not conduct a mini-trial. The complaint
included the inspection report, photographic evidence, the
purchase receipt showing overcharging, the notice to the
company, and the company's reply.
24. The respondents assert that all mandatory procedures were
duly followed. The inspection on 18.06.2019 was part of routine
enforcement. A show cause notice was issued on 26.06.2019,
followed by a personal hearing on 15.07.2019. The complaint
was filed on 23.10.2019 after considering the company's reply.
Any delay in filing was due to procedural fairness. The
respondents denied any bad faith, explaining that any document
omissions were inadvertent and did not vitiate the proceedings.
They maintain that such irregularities are curable and have not
caused any prejudice.
25. The respondents tried to establish jurisdiction under
Section 177 CrPC. The entire cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the Almora court, where the resort is located,
where the inspection occurred, and where the alleged
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
overcharging took place. The fact that the accused resides outside
the jurisdiction is immaterial to the court's authority.
26. The respondents contend that permitting arbitrary pricing
of standard pre-packaged commodities within hospitality settings
would significantly dilute the integrity of the Maximum Retail
Price (MRP) regime and undermine the statutory mandate of
consumer protection. They assert that the regulatory action
undertaken in the present case reinforces the foundational
objective of ensuring transparency, preventing unfair trade
practices, and upholding uniform pricing norms applicable across
retail environments, irrespective of the nature of the
establishment.
27. The Court has examined the application filed by Mahindra
Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., wherein the company seeks
quashing of proceedings initiated under the Legal Metrology Act,
2009 and the Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011. The
application challenges the notice issued by the Legal Metrology
Department on the basis of a consumer complaint alleging that
Mahindra Resorts distributed welcome kits without the
mandatory declarations prescribed under Rule 6, thereby
violating Section 18 of the Act. The applicant's primary
contention is that it does not deal with the sale of pre-packaged
commodities but provides services through holiday memberships.
Therefore, the provisions of the Act are inapplicable.
28. The foundational premise of the applicants' case rests on
the settled legal position that the provisions of the Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 (LM Act) and the Legal Metrology
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Rules) do not apply to
9
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
establishments such as hotels, resorts, and restaurants. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Federation of Hotels and Restaurants
Association of India vs. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 97 has
unequivocally held that the offer of food and beverages in such
establishments constitutes a composite service, wherein the
service element predominates, and thus falls outside the purview
of the LM Act. The Court categorically observed that transactions
in hotels and restaurants involve an indivisible contract of
service, making the sale of packaged commodities incidental to
the larger service provided. This principle has been consistently
upheld by various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court
in Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited vs. Union of India 2009 (112)
DRJ 123 and the Kerala High Court in Taj Kerala Hotels &
Resorts Limited vs. Union of India (2013) 3 KLT 426, which
extended this logic to clubs and resorts, affirming that such
entities are entitled to price their offerings above the printed
MRP.
29. However, upon scrutiny of the records and arguments
advanced, the Court finds that the transaction between the
complainant and the company cannot be viewed in abstraction
from the physical components involved. While it is true that
Mahindra Holidays promotes itself as a service provider offering
vacation memberships, it is equally apparent from the documents
on record that physical materials, specifically a welcome kit,are
delivered to customers as part of the contract. This welcome kit is
not merely symbolic; it contains promotional literature, a
membership card, documents of terms and conditions, and other
packaged elements which are handed over or couriered to the
10
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
consumer. These items are visibly and physically packaged and
form a part of the commercial transaction, which brings them
within the purview of the Legal Metrology (Packaged
Commodities) Rules, 2011.
30. The definition of a "pre-packaged commodity" under
Section 2(l) of the Legal Metrology Act includes any commodity
which, without the purchaser being present, is placed in a
package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the
product contained therein has a predetermined quantity. It is
immaterial whether the said item is sold in isolation or as a
component of a broader offering.
31. The Court notes that in this case, the welcome kit and its
contents were neither excluded from the commercial value of the
transaction nor marked as gratuitous. They form a part of the
offering extended to the consumer in exchange for monetary
consideration, and thus, cannot be isolated from statutory
scrutiny.
32. Moreover, the Packaged Commodities Rules are consumer-
welfare legislation, and a liberal interpretation must be accorded
to serve the objectives of transparency and protection against
unfair trade practices. A consumer, upon receiving a package that
forms part of a paid transaction, is entitled to the basic
information prescribed under Rule 6, such as the name and
address of the manufacturer/packer/importer, net quantity, MRP,
date of manufacture, and customer care details. In the present
case, the complainant has categorically stated that the package
received did not contain such disclosures, and the applicants have
not refuted this fact with any substantive evidence. Instead, it has
11
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
attempted to shield its obligations by characterizing the welcome
kit as a service accessory, which the Court finds unacceptable
and evasive.
33. It is also pertinent to observe that the scope of the Legal
Metrology Act is not limited to traditional consumer goods sold
over the counter. The legislative intent clearly includes within its
fold any material that reaches the consumer in packaged form,
especially where consideration is paid. The welcome kit, in this
case, was not sent as a courtesy or promotional sample, but was
integral to the fulfilment of the service agreement and forms part
of the transaction. The company cannot distance itself from the
packaging standards merely by labelling its business as "service-
based," especially when physical goods are part of the contracted
deliverables.
34. The Court further notes that the applicant's attempt to treat
the Legal Metrology notice as misconceived and issued without
jurisdiction appears to be premature. The Legal Metrology
Officer, as a statutory authority, has the power to issue notices
and seek explanations based on consumer complaints. The
applicants were afforded the opportunity to respond to the notice,
and the proceedings were still at a preliminary stage. Invoking
writ jurisdiction or seeking judicial intervention at this nascent
stage amounts to an abuse of process and undermines the purpose
of administrative scrutiny.
35. The challenge to the summoning order reveals a
fundamental misunderstanding of the evidentiary threshold
required at the preliminary stage. The Magistrate's order
demonstrates proper application of mind by explicitly referencing
12
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
the inspection report, the documentary evidence of overcharging,
and the company's response. The detailed recording of these
materials in the summoning order satisfies the requirements laid
down in Neeharika Infrastructure and other precedents governing
the standard of scrutiny at this stage.
36. Significantly, the Court cannot ignore the broader public
interest implications of this case. The MRP regime serves critical
consumer protection objectives by ensuring price transparency
and preventing arbitrary pricing in retail markets. The legislative
framework deliberately imposes strict standards to maintain
uniformity and fairness in packaged commodity sales across all
retail environments. Hospitality establishments have ample
opportunity to legitimately recover service costs through properly
disclosed service charges rather than by circumventing MRP
regulations.
37. Furthermore, the Court observes that the present
applications represent a premature challenge to ongoing criminal
proceedings.
38. On the issue of directors' liability, while it is true that
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra)requires specific allegations
against directors, Section 49(1) of the LM Act creates a statutory
presumption of liability. The petitioners' contention regarding
their non-executive roles raises factual questions that require
evidence-led examination at the trial stage. At this juncture, no
case for quashing is made out. The applicants have not
demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify
interference at this nascent stage.
13
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
39. All defences available to the applicants, including those
relating to the applicability of the Legal Metrology Act and their
individual liability, are matters best left for adjudication during
trial, where a full appreciation of facts and evidence can take
place. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, being
exceptional in nature, cannot be employed to pre-empt or short-
circuit the statutory process of criminal adjudication at such an
incipient stage.
40. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is not
persuaded to accept the applicants' prayer for quashing the
proceedings. The transaction under scrutiny, pertaining to the sale
of a pre-packaged Pepsi can at a price exceeding the declared
Maximum Retail Price, is one that prima facie falls within the
ambit of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The argument that the sale
was part of a composite hospitality service is untenable in the
present factual matrix, where the packaged commodity was sold
independently and for distinct consideration, thereby attracting
the statutory obligations prescribed under the Act.
41. This Court is further guided by the principles laid down in
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
(2021) 6 SCC 516, which caution against premature interference
under Section 482 CrPC, except in cases where the complaint is
manifestly frivolous or malicious. No such exceptional
circumstance exists herein. The presumption under Section 49 of
the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, raises a statutory inference of
director liability, rebuttable only by concrete evidence--an
exercise appropriate for trial, not at the threshold.
14
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4057
42. Furthermore, consumer protection legislations must receive
a purposive interpretation, and the MRP regime must be enforced
rigorously to preserve transparency in trade. The applicants' plea
to shield themselves behind service nomenclature, while
physically delivering a commercial packaged good, cannot be
countenanced in law.
ORDER
Accordingly, all three applications stand dismissed.
The applicants are, however, at liberty to raise all
contentions available to them in law before the learned trial court
in accordance with law.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:16.05.2025
15
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2883 of 2019, Radhika Shastry & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2805 of 2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited
& Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr & Criminal Misc. Application No. 2806 of 2019 in
Parthasarathy Vankipuram Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link