HC holds French liquor giant’s Indian wing ineligible for licence

New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the denial of permission to French liquor giant Pernod Ricard’s Indian wing, which wants to resume sale of its products in the national capital. The court cited the company’s alleged involvement in money laundering in the Delhi excise policy case.It said the facts are that “the petitioner continues to be a company accused of committing the offence of money-laundering as defined under the PMLA". Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the firm is “facing trial before the court of competent jurisdiction.”The court concluded that Pernod Ricard India has a "criminal background as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Delhi Excise Act and is ineligible for the grant of the L-1 licence.”The nature of the allegations against the petitioner, according to CBI‘s FIR, the chargesheet, the ED, the supplementary prosecution complaint, “all point to the petitioner purportedly having illegally influenced the forming of the excise policy to the detriment of the people of Delhi,” the court said. This clearly shows that the company does in fact have a “criminal background for the purposes of Section 13(1)(c) of the Excise Act”, the court said.The high court agreed with the submission of Delhi govt standing counsel Sameer Vashisht that the ongoing ED investigation against the company made it ineligible for the L-1 liquor licence. It also said that a company cannot be considered to be without a criminal background when it is accused of committing money-laundering in connection with the Delhi excise policy, and a court has concluded that there is sufficient ground to proceed with trial.The high court added that even if CBI does not prosecute one of the company’s employees for corruption, it “does not strip off the criminal background of the company i.e., the petitioner concerning the offence of money-laundering under the PMLA.”Pernod had moved the high court challenging the decision of the excise department to reject its applications for an L-1 wholesale licence. It said the decision was taken mechanically and argued that it has not been convicted of any offence.The high court rejected this argument and held that the condition for not being convicted of a criminal offence “is the floor and not the ceiling for a person” so that anyone with a criminal background is not part of the liquor business.