D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioners for grant of L-1 license for wholesale vend beer for the year 1994-95 under the Delhi Liquor license Rules, 1976, framed under the Punjab Excise Act as extended to Delhi, and then a mandamus is also sought directing the respondents to issue the license "after disposing the representation/appeal made by the petitioners." A writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought directing the third respondent the Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Excise, to grant/renew the license of the petitioners within seven days and then to allow the petitioners as licensee to make wholesale supply of all brands of beer, namely, (1) Rosy Pelican Beer; (2) Boxer Super Strong Beer; (3) Haywards Lager Beer; and (4) Haywards-2000 Extra Strong Beer, with a direction to the respondents to grant permission to import the same from the State of Haryana. The prayers made in the petition are not very intelligible as the petitioners seek various reliefs one after the other. First the petitioners want their application to be decided, then they talk of representations/appeal, then grant/renewal of the license, and lastly, for permission to import the beer and to make wholesale supply of the same.
(2) We issued notice to the respondents on the contention of the petitioners that their application for grant of L-1 license had not been decided so far. There is no order of the authorities which is impugned before us. It, however, appears that first petitioner was granted L-1 (wholesale vend of beer) license for the year 1993-94 for sale of two brands of beer, namely, Rosy Pelican Beer and Boxer Super Strong Beer. Its complaint has been that it has not been granted license for the other two brands of beer. It would, thus, appear that the petitioners have not cared to frame the prayers in the writ petition properly. What the petition contains are : L-1 license granted to the first petitioner for the wholesale vend of two brands of beer Rosy Pelican Beer and Boxer Super Strong Beer for the year 1994- 95; copy the application for grant of license for the year 1994-95 for the vend of all the four brands of beer; reminders and representations addressed to the Excise Commissioner, the third respondent and the Lt. Governor, the second respondent. If we refer to representation dated 26 May 1994 of the first petitioner to the Excise Commissioner, it starts with the following statement :-
"WE thank you for granting us Excise license for the year 1994-95 for sale of Beer in the National Capital and issue of import permit for importing beer to Delhi,"
It is then stated that the petitioner had applied for four brands of beer but the permit had been granted only for two brands, namely. Rosy Pelican Lager Beer and Boxer Super Strong Beer. What is addressed to the Lt. Governor is by way of representation/appeal.
(3) In answer to the show cause notice the respondents have filed the affidavit of the Excise Commissioner, the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the trade mark registration rights of the brands for which it had not been granted license and that for the petitioner to enable it to get a license registration must be vested in it. It is stated that these brands belong to another company Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. A communication dated 13 December 1994 addressed to the petitioner has also been filed wherein it is mentioned that with reference to letter dated 23 May 1994 of the petitioner regarding registration of two brands of beer, viz., Haywards Lager Beer and Haywards 2000 Extra Strong Beer, it was stated that the matter was considered and rejected "since the trade mark registration rights of these two brands of beer is not with M/s. Haryana Breweries Ltd." The petitioner with its brief note of arguments has also brought on record a letter dated 13 December 1994 from the office of the Commissioner of Excise to Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. This letter reads as under :-
"SUB: Registration of Haywards Lager/Hayward Diet/Hayward 2000/Haywards 500 beer for sale in current excise licensing year (i.e. 1994-95). Sir, With reference to your letter dated 21st November, 1994 on the subject cited above, I am directed to convey that the competent authority has considered your application and rejected it on the grounds that the brands mentioned in the application viz. Haywards Lager beer, Haywards Diet beer, Hayward 2000 beer and Haywards 5000 Super Strong beer are registered in the name of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. and permission to bring the above brands can only be given from the license of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. at Bengal Distillery, Bhaderkali (West Bengal). The permission to sell and import these brands from M/s. Haryana Breweries Ltd. and M/s. Central distillery & Breweries Ltd. can not be granted as the brands are not registered with those distilleries/breweries and they are already separate L-1 license holder. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Krishan Kumar) Distt. Excise Officer (IMFL)"
(4) Relevant rule in the Delhi Liquor license Rules on the basis of which the petitioner has been denied grant of L-1 license in respect of the two brands of beers is rule 4(ii)(a), which as amended, reads as under :
"4(II)(A)A license in form L-1 and L-1A shall only be granted to distillery/brewery/bottling plants"
PROVIDED further that the trade mark registration rights, in respect of all such brands as are proposed to be sold under the L-1/L-1A license, are vested in the distillery/brewery/or in favor of an individual/ firm/society/company having ownership rights in the distillery/brewery."
(5) The principal argument of the petitioner has been that the petitioner is a subsidiary of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. which is holding company and so also the owners of the trade marks and the subsidiary argument is that in any case the petitioner company belongs to the group of companies of Shaw Wallace and thus also entitled to claim the ownership rights in the trade marks though registered in the name of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. In support of his submissions Mr. Dua, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon Section 4 of the Companies Act and a decision of the English High Court of Justice - Chancery Division, in Colgate- Palmolive Limited and another v. Marhvell Finance Limited and another, (1988) R.P.C. 283 (Reports of Patent Cases).
(6) Section 4 of the Companies Act provides as to when and how a company shall be deemed to be a subsidiary of another. It is stated that the petitioner is the subsidiary of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. which is the holding company, but that does not mean Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. owns the petitioner. In appropriated cases courts have lifted the veil of a company to find out who is behind it but in normal course both the holding company and subsidiary company have to be treated as separate legal entities. When certain property is owned by a subsidiary company it can be said that it is owned by the holding company. No argument has been raised and no ground alleged for applying the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil. As a matter of fact, the whole argument on this falls to the ground as Mr.Dua is not pleading for Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., the holding company, that rights of the subsidiary vest in the holding company assuming his statement of law to be correct.
(7) Judgment in Colgate-Palmolive has no application to the facts of the present case. That case dealt with passing off action and infringement of Trade Mark bought by registered user of trade mark. We, Therefore, feel it unnecessary to analyze this judgment. There is no such law that a trade mark registered in the name of any company belongs to each and every other company if they all belong to one "group of companies" as contended.
(8) We do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed.
