M/S VIDHARTH INDUSRIES INDIA PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA Advocate - NAGARAJA H R — WP/9044/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.

Next hearing 21-Jul-2026

CNR: KAHC010195112026

Filing Number

WP/8793/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/9044/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Judge

B M Shyam Prasad

Coram

B M Shyam Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

RES-Residuary ( 112 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S VIDHARTH INDUSRIES INDIA PVT LTD

    Adv. PRASHANTH SABARISH SHIVADASS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA Advocate - NAGARAJA H R

  2. 2.CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS,

Case History

  1. 21-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 21-Jul-2026

    Fresh Matter/S

    B M Shyam Prasad

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    B M Shyam PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 9044/2026 Vidharth Industries India Pvt Ltd challenged Rule 33 of the Health Security and National Security Cess Rules, 2026, which mandates CCTV installation in pan masala manufacturing premises. The Karnataka High Court granted an interim order suspending the rule's operation, finding it potentially ultra vires and discriminatory, citing similar stays by the Allahabad High Court on comparable tobacco-related rules. The petition is re-listed for July 21, 2026, with respondents retaining liberty to vacate the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/9044/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 9044/2026 Vidharth Industries India Pvt Ltd challenged Rule 33 of the Health Security and National Security Cess Rules, 2026, which mandates CCTV installation in pan masala manufacturing premises. The Karnataka High Court granted an interim order suspending the rule's operation, finding it potentially ultra vires and discriminatory, citing similar stays by the Allahabad High Court on comparable tobacco-related rules. The petition is re-listed for July 21, 2026, with respondents retaining liberty to vacate the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case