{"id":93164,"date":"2010-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-13T14:37:56","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T09:07:56","slug":"skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
(By Shri.' Arum iiK'u-i:)ar,'iAdlV'oeiate for Crest Law Partners)\n\n  i\\\/I'S*I.L Building, No.36, Cunningham Road,\n\nB  ~-Managing Director.\n\n3  32. Company Secretary and\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG..aLoRgE,i,,\nDATED THIS THE Gap\"? DAY OF NOVEMBER', may   \"\nBEFORE:   it B it C\nTHE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND._BYRgA'i2,I\u00a7;DDi't--,i'II \"\nWRIT' PETITION No. 13665 2008' (EXC-IS]i;) \n\nBETWEEN: it i B C R  ii\nSKOL Breweries Limited,    \nA company incorpora_te~d un,der,th'e  C' \nProvisions of the C0I\u00a7IpaaIIies\u00abAct_, 1955:-, B V\nAnd having itsioftii\u00e9eat Jalahaolglig  C  \nRoad, Yeshw,ant'h,pur;:.Bang_alor'e --' 5..6_(V)WO322\nAnd herein repres.e\u00bbnted3\";by hishead legal\n\nAnd authorized 1\"epresj'e-11tati\\'fe__ --- '\nMr. Gobind\"Chandi1\"a,_man~i, \"* -. ' \" v  . . PETITIONER\n\n1,\" Mysore\"Sa_le_s International Limited\nA' c_ompanyi'.i--nCorporated under the\nV Provisions ofthe Companies Act,'E956\n And h.i2l'4\/,_ii'1g their registered office at\n\n Bangalore -- 560 052\nAnd herein represented by its\n\nDeputy General Manager,\n\nMysore Saies lnternationai Limited,\n\nMSIL Building, No.36,\n\nCunningham Road,\n\nBangalore -- 560 052. ...RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
?’><\/p>\n
(By Shri. Padmanabha Mahale, Senior Advocate for <\/p>\n
Angadi, Advocate for Respondent No.l and 2)<\/p>\n
This Writ Petition is filed under A_rticle.sz  th-ye.’
\nConstitution of India, praying to declare’ that the ‘vd.etermin–ati.Qn”._VV
\nmade by the Respondents vide ‘the impugned orderyyy dated , *<\/p>\n
25.07.2008, vide Annexure–D, is niii.l_ and void..and’not;estab1ish
\nin the eye of law and that it is—-not.in~.,comp’1’iance.’jwith the
\ndirections of the Hon’b1e’SLipre1t-he Cour_tnvi’de its order in SLP
\nN().4728–4732 of 1989 (Civ1i1_e_Ap’peii1?;, datevd._l’.’3..2.2003 and the
\nfurther direction of this Honfble E7oi1prt’ivide~~.’r;<)'urt order dated
\n15.6.2005 in W.P,No.,_47I2\u00a3i. of:.20.05r.._ 9 <\/p>\n
This peri'r'ieii.'iieei2iirg.beee..yhe.aryd er 84.08.2010 and reserved
\nand comingon for'pi:onou.ncen'ie'1it_.of orders this day, the Court
\ndeliveredthe foi'1ofwuingii;:' _  _<\/p>\n
Heard the leariiediiicounisiijrl for the parties.<\/p>\n
  facts 'b~rie_fi_y.stated are as foliowsz<\/p>\n
 ' all''M[s';.,Mysvore—-Breweries Limited (Hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
  'M\ufb01ii\ufb01iiifior  is a company engaged in the manufacture of<\/p>\n
-4  u._be,er. It i’s,V1’_n-erged with the petitioner herein. The present dispute<\/p>\n
   relates to the affairs of MBL. The Karnataka Excise<\/p>\n
 of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1.968 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
  ‘referred to as the ‘Excise Rules’ for brevity) provides for licensing<\/p>\n
and sale of Indian and foreign l’%xor. Rule 3(l l.) of the Excise<\/p>\n
the amended Rule had come into effect. It was only ingflie:”*year<\/p>\n
1994, that MSIL placed orders on the petitioner for  <\/p>\n
and it is the contention of the petitionerihthat the ent_ire._stoc-ks <\/p>\n
beer manufactured by it. was to be taken’lde.livery,Qf\u00bb.by <\/p>\n
which lacked the infrastructure to act\u00bb  entire
\nstock of liquor and beer   It was in
\nthat background that__though,.a..inonoploly  to be created
\nby the   issued licences to
\nvarious   Section 3(ll) of the<\/p>\n
Excise Ru.lesr and l’lz’1~.lft’i.,.f1pl’1i'<t1\u00a3is'\u00bbll'3t.-if'was'driven to withdraw its order<\/p>\n
nominating   iithelsole distributor with effect from<\/p>\n
   ttttt <\/p>\n
i" one other manufacturer, M\/s Khoday<\/p>\n
Distilleriesp.  (hereinafter referred to as the 'KDL' for<\/p>\n
l""<\u00ab.__brevity)  also challenged the amendment to the Rules and<\/p>\n
A  iultirnatleily failed before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the<\/p>\n
ilfappeal and that petitioner was directed to pay compensation to<\/p>\n
if  MSIL. This may have prompted MSIL to seek a review of the<\/p>\n
order permitting this petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave<\/p>\n
Petition, that it had fiied nine years after its disposal. The review<\/p>\n
customers was less than the rate at which products were<\/p>\n
to MSEL. The officials of MSIL however, remained-'.sl{epticaelii arid' <\/p>\n
on several occasions had inspected the" docu\u00abme.nts,\u00abpertaining to;<\/p>\n
sales effected by the petitioner  had even"obtaineid;copiesiall a<\/p>\n
sale invoices for the period l994–li9'SlE[';\u00bbduri.ng
\nhad placed orders for supplyfof  peridorreriend MSIL
\nby an order dated    to pay 5%
\non all sales    effected by
\nthe petitioner,   that the petitioner
\nhad  on its customers that was to<\/p>\n
be paid over-..toaccordingly, the petitioner had<\/p>\n
 deriiandof MSIL before this court, on the ground<\/p>\n
"th_at' therelwpas, lnoidetermination, which was essential, in order to<\/p>\n
  raise such a  as permitted by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
 _ T "flair; court, by its order dated 15.6.2005 held that MSIL<\/p>\n
  not made a proper determination of the amount demanded<\/p>\n
 the demand was quashed and the matter remitted to MSIL to<\/p>\n
x afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to make a<\/p>\n
determination in the manner contemplated in the order of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court which was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
g<\/p>\n
It is therefore the complaint of the petitioner that there is no<\/p>\n
determination on the basis of material placed befQre_44i’tthe<\/p>\n
respondents in holding that the petitioner i-‘t:_s___”i_<\/p>\n
customers 5% towards margin money playable to  ‘~ <\/p>\n
other hand, reliance is placed on   to
\nwhich the petitioner   proceed on the
\nassumption that the.petitioner.:.was.’iiliahleito of its entire
\nturnover to  of the apex court
\nwas to hmpidpparp   petitioner had collected
\nmoney frorn  paid to MSIL. The burden was on<\/p>\n
MSIL to estaibl.ipshv.that.thepetitioner had indeed collected any such<\/p>\n
 on the”‘ac.count of MSIL. The onus could not be<\/p>\n
“al_1il’te_d’on~.t:he4″petit.ioner to establish the negative and the entire<\/p>\n
records of the petitioner having been placed at the disposal of the<\/p>\n
r’espondei3.rs’, a summary direction as aforesaid, is therefore<\/p>\n
 _ w=ipth’outi any basis.\n<\/p>\n
It is sought to be pointed out that in the course of cross-
\nexamination of an erstwhile officer of the petitioner, four invoices
\nin which the value billed to certain third–pa1*ties was shown as<\/p>\n
higher than the value at which it was sold to l\\\/ISlL . These were<\/p>\n
\u00a7<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
would not show that an additional sum of 5% was cl.aimed__from<\/p>\n
the said thirdwparty purchasers.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand, as was evident chartered” <\/p>\n
acCountant’s report on behalf of thel’\u00bb._petitioi1eir;,that the::~-its\/ra’te_e<\/p>\n
charged to MSIL was in fact highe_r’t~hxan the av\/erage:iratechargeld <\/p>\n
by the petitioner on its other custo.naers._ but  taken as a
\nproof of the petitioner having’  during the
\nrelevant period.  “present petition is
\nfiled seeking to iiivdernand as not being in
\naccordanceiixvithtthe  ofilsluprerne Court and being
\nwithout basis. ‘<\/p>\n
3,:_ The learnedvcottnsellappcaiing for the petitioner would<\/p>\n
nreiteratie above sequence of events and take this court through<\/p>\n
the re’cor.d”to\u00b0de.n1o’nstrate the unjust demand made.<\/p>\n
 Theiespondents not having chosen to file any<\/p>\n
 \u00e91at\u00e9.n\u00a5e,nt of objections, the learned Senior Advocate Shri<\/p>\n
  Mahale appearing for the counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
 iihtvould submit that an application has been filed for dismissal of<\/p>\n
the writ petition, which in effect, contains averments which<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
would be in the nature of statement of objections to<\/p>\n
petition and he would contend that firstly, the presentifvxritpetitioii’: V’<\/p>\n
is not maintainable as there is a conteraptiilpetitioln p.endi:1_g before;<\/p>\n
the apex Court and secondly that the petitiion laclcsv_r’nieri’t <\/p>\n
petitioner is bound by the orders pas’se:d\u00bbby the”apex:iCoLiivt. WMSIL
\nhas been appointed as a so.l_e’~\u00abdistributo1*:. the Rules and the
\namended Rules prescribe th.at:._the’ldistri’b’t1yto’rl?’s-.’licence shall be<\/p>\n
issued only to such -r{o’mp.alti.ies;.  vorlcuritrolled by the State<\/p>\n
Governrrigntfppp  adiripitted  thegpetiitioner, the amended Rule
\nwas challenged bvllllstevepralll”ti.an’u.f’ac’turers including the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The petitioner .withdra$vn the special leave petition before<\/p>\n
“*th_e  Ec__our_t beifore..___r.h’e amended Rule was enforced, has<\/p>\n
“ra_ischi’evo’t1sly.l’charged commission on the account of the MSIL<\/p>\n
and has un_iustl–y”lenriched itself taking advantage of the order of<\/p>\n
i””–__ltlt,x apex” coiurt, which indicated that no compensation would be<\/p>\n
  in view of the withdrawal of the special leave petition,<\/p>\n
iihthough such direction was issued that the petitioner would be<\/p>\n
i liable to pay compensation in the event that the appeal should fail<\/p>\n
and the other manufacturers who had ultimately failed before the<\/p>\n
apex court were required to pay compensation, which they had<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
court, an attempt was made by this court to ensure that there_”be”a<\/p>\n
further determination of any excess amounts -eihargeid’-it V’<\/p>\n
coilected by the petitioner on the accsattteor,r&tsIL,”ae;;i1sgsai,-,<\/p>\n
having regard to the scanty material oriV..wil’rich  <\/p>\n
raise the demand while negatingiithiejivol1iniinoi1g:h’.=doetiinentary
\nevidence which was  ‘estabiish that the
\npetitioner had indeed iivhich was made
\nover to MSil.,..   resisted. It is
\n there is no scope for
\ninterference    ‘of the express direction of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Co1irt,_Vii \u00bb In that,_vvieiv of the matter, it is appropriate that<\/p>\n
“*th_e  approach.._.t.he Supreme Court itself in respect of its<\/p>\n
 on the face of it, in the epinien of this court, is<\/p>\n
 V apparently <\/p>\n
    regard to the order”-of this court dated 25.3.2010,<\/p>\n
 .___”tvherein it was observed that since there was no precipitative<\/p>\n
 .. factiott initiated by the respondents, there was not need to consider<\/p>\n
the ra er for interim relief while reservin libert to the
\nI3 Y T 3 Y
\npetitioner to seek interim orders at an appropriate time, by Virtue<\/p>\n
of the dismissal of this writ petition, coercive measures being<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
taken against the petitioner is imminent and therefore, jo1*t.ife\u00abrV’t-oi<\/p>\n
enable the petitioner to approach the apex   ”<\/p>\n
appropriate relief, the petitioner is entitileictto  proteciteti ‘front<\/p>\n
any such precipitative action for 21 ti.mited’per’iod of ei_ght’v\/’eek4s’;’~.pi i’<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the petition spta-nt1sv.d’i’sp_oseti”of._inyterms as<\/p>\n
above. The respondents sha1l_e.’no’t..Vtia1\u00a7;e tiniyprecipitative action<\/p>\n
against the petitio:ner:.ifor 3 F:!A\u20acri(:)f 6iightV.wee1:.’s from today.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-:\n<\/p>\n
Tudge<\/p>\n
[IV<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010 Author: Anand Byrareddy (By Shri.’ Arum iiK’u-i:)ar,’iAdlV’oeiate for Crest Law Partners) i\\\/I’S*I.L Building, No.36, Cunningham Road, B ~-Managing Director. 3 32. Company Secretary and IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG..aLoRgE,i,, DATED THIS THE Gap”? DAY OF NOVEMBER’, may […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSkol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International ... on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International ... on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T09:07:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T09:07:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1507,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International ... on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T09:07:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International ... on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International ... on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T09:07:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T09:07:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010"},"wordCount":1507,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010","name":"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International ... on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T09:07:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skol-breweries-limited-vs-mysore-sales-international-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Skol Breweries Limited vs Mysore Sales International … on 4 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}