Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing N. S. Shethna vs Vinubhai Harilal Panchal on 25 August, 1966

Coimbatore Motor Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal ... on 12 December, 1973

9. N.S. Sethna and Ors. v. Vilubhai Harilal Panchal , related to licence for sale of cinema tickets. The Bombay Cinema Rules in addition to an exhibition licence, require a licence to be taken for sale of cinema tickets. Shelat, J., speaking for the Court, pointed out that neither the Act nor, the rules provided for renewal of a licence for sale of tickets. No doubt, there was renewal provided in Clause (4) of Form F. But, that was only, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, in an off-hand manner. This fact was relied on by the Supreme Court to hold that when a licence was granted or renewed, subject to the provisions of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954, the so-called renewed licence was a new one and not a continuity of the old one.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwarprasad Brijlal Mundada vs Shrimantrao Nivruttirao Gangane And ... on 3 March, 2023

Further relying upon the judgment in the case of N. S. Shethna Vs. Vinubhai Harilal Panchal reported in AIR 1967 SC 1036, he would submit that when licence is renewable every year, the renewal of license can be regarded as a fresh licence and show-cause notice for revocation in respect of renewed licence cannot be issued on the basis of lapses during the period of earlier licence. He would further submit that the impugned show-cause notice has been issued on the basis of complaint made by third parties. The intervenors who have filed the civil applications have no legal right to oppose the prayers in the writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Dharmaraj Kisan Birgad And Another vs Shrimantrao Nivruttirao Gangane And ... on 3 March, 2023

Further relying upon the judgment in the case of N. S. Shethna Vs. Vinubhai Harilal Panchal reported in AIR 1967 SC 1036, he would submit that when licence is renewable every year, the renewal of license can be regarded as a fresh licence and show-cause notice for revocation in respect of renewed licence cannot be issued on the basis of lapses during the period of earlier licence. He would further submit that the impugned show-cause notice has been issued on the basis of complaint made by third parties. The intervenors who have filed the civil applications have no legal right to oppose the prayers in the writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Shrimantrao Nivruttirao Gangane And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 3 March, 2023

Further relying upon the judgment in the case of N. S. Shethna Vs. Vinubhai Harilal Panchal reported in AIR 1967 SC 1036, he would submit that when licence is renewable every year, the renewal of license can be regarded as a fresh licence and show-cause notice for revocation in respect of renewed licence cannot be issued on the basis of lapses during the period of earlier licence. He would further submit that the impugned show-cause notice has been issued on the basis of complaint made by third parties. The intervenors who have filed the civil applications have no legal right to oppose the prayers in the writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Dr. R.C. Chatterji vs The Bihar State Board Of Homeopathic ... on 14 May, 1974

He has relied upon the decision in N.S. Shethna v. Vinubhai Harilal Panchal, AIR 1967 SC 1036 for the proposition that the interpretation of any provision is not affected by consequences flowing therefrom. There cannot be any quarrel with this proposition. But in the present case, the problem is different. The consequences here are being considered along with various other factors in construing the term 'University'. This is certainly permissible as is clear from the following observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the above decision:
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Shamamma And Anr. vs Ramachander Rao And Ors. on 12 October, 1973

"The rules relating to the licence for sale of tickets provide as aforesaid that the maximum period for which such a licence can be issued is one year. Renewal of a licence is provided for but only indirectly and in a sort of an offhand manner by Cl. 4 of form F, It appears therefrom that a licence has to produce his licence, pay the renewal fee and get entries made on its reserve as to the date of renewal, the period upto which it would be valid on such renewal and the fees having been paid therefor. Since the rules do not provide as to how much are the fees for renewal it must be presumed that the fees are the same as for the licence itself. It is clear from the rules that they do not contain anything to show that the renewed licence is a continuation of the licence previously issued except the fact that the authority has to make the said entries on the reverse of the licence. The fact that the Rules do not make any provision for the power to renew, the procedure for renewal and for its fees as is done in Chapter VII in the case of a cinema licence is an indication that the draftsman equated renewal of a licence with the issuance of a licence. It may also be observed that it is not as if renewal is automatic nor is it to be granted as a matter of course. If the licensing authority desires to impose any fresh conditions there is nothing in the rules to prevent him from doing so. That being so a renewal cannot, unless the context requires, otherwise, be regarded as a continuation of the licence previously issued. There is also nothing in Chapter VIII or in Form F indicating that the renewal is such a continuation." It appears to us that the rules framed under the Money Lenders Act also stand on a par with the rules in the above case and as such whenever a licence is granted, either by way of original grant or by way of renewal, it should be deemed to be a new licence.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

T.M. Sriramulu Naidu And Ors. vs Divisional Commissioner And Ors. on 1 September, 1978

17. It is also necessary to state that Rule 105 does not provide for renewal of licence. Renewal means merely a continuation of the licence originally issued. But that is not what is intended under Rule 105. It provides for regrant of licence. Regrant of a licence in the context of the scheme of the Rules cannot be other than a fresh grant. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in N. S. Shethna v. Vinubhai Harilal Panchal while considering the scope of Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1953 and Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026

In fact, Sub-section (2) of Section 31 clearly authorises the authority to cancel any other licence, therefore, the submission made by Shri Naman Nagrath that the show cause notice will relate only to the period when it was issued and not further, is not at all justified because even if that yardstick is applied, then cause of action for the show cause notice is for the year 2011, that being so, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N.S. Sethna (supra), even show cause notice could not have been issued in the year 2023, but that is not the position, inasmuch as, to fulfill the requirements of Section 31(1), authorizes the State to take action when judgment of conviction was passed by the competent Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 Next