- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC Rejects Anheuser-Busch Inbev’s Plea To Put Three-Year-Old Sales Ban Imposed By Delhi Government On Hold
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Delhi High Court has rejected a request from alcoholic beverages maker Anheuser-Busch InBev to stay a three-year sales ban imposed by Delhi government.Earlier, the New Delhi government had barred AB InBev from selling its beer brands like Budweiser, Hoegaarden and Stella Artois in the New Delhi market, after alleged evasion of local state taxes, which the company...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court has rejected a request from alcoholic beverages maker Anheuser-Busch InBev to stay a three-year sales ban imposed by Delhi government.
Earlier, the New Delhi government had barred AB InBev from selling its beer brands like Budweiser, Hoegaarden and Stella Artois in the New Delhi market, after alleged evasion of local state taxes, which the company had denied.
The Delhi government's ban order came after a three-year probe which found that beer maker SABMiller which was acquired by AB InBev in 2016 for around USD 100 billion had used duplicate barcodes on its beer bottles supplied to city retailers, allowing it to pay lower taxes.
The development comes after the Delhi state excise commissioner had rejected a similar request from the company recently.
During the court proceedings, AB InBev's counsel Rajiv Nayar had argued for immediate relief, stating that the company is suffering since it could not apply for state licenses for 2020.
Incidentally, AB InBev happens to be the second biggest player in India’s beer market, accounting for a 17.5% market share.
Industry executives have said the Delhi ban would be a major setback for AB InBev, which is also battling another antitrust probe regarding alleged beer price fixing by SABMiller which it had taken over.