Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (6.29 seconds)
Documents citing Doongaji And Co vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 August, 1991

Sameer Ahmad, Son Of Shri Ameer Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 4 April, 2005

v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 360; Har Shanker and Ors. (supra); Lakhanlal v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 660; Sat Pal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1979) 4 SCC 232; Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals v. State of Kerala, (1981) 4 SCC 391; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566; Doongaji & Co. (I) v. State of M.P., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 313; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 574; Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 460 and Yadar Shafi and Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 740.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Bandera Muraul Navyatayat Swablambi ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 26 February, 2008

5. Having given my anxious consideration to the submission of the parties in the light of the pleadings on record I am the view that as a matter of fact this writ application has become infructuous as the remaining period of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 6 is only a month more i.e. upto 31.3.2008 and thus the whole exercise of quashing of the existing settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 6 and a consequential direction for making settlement for the remaining period of 2007-08 i.e. only a month would be an exercise in futility. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Guruswami v. State of Mysore , Rasbihari v. State of Orissa Jay and Co. v. R.T.A. Madura and Doongaji v. State of M.P. wherein it has been laid down that if the period for which contract is given by the Government, contrary to law, is over or about to be over, the court may not issue a writ of mandamus. As a matter of fact it was in this background that the counsel for the petitioner as noted above had himself given up the two prayers originally made in the writ application.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M K Jha - Full Document

Deluxe Bar And Ors. vs The Excise Superintendent And Ors. on 6 March, 1992

The observations made by the Supreme Court in the context of applicability of Article 14 were cited with approval by K. Ramaswamy, J., speaking for the Supreme Court in Doongaji & Co., v. State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1942 In referring to Article 14 whether the Supreme Court had in mind the entire gamut of Article 14 including in its sweep the element of reasonableness, is not quite clear.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Gorle Ramu vs Commissioner Of Prohibition And ... on 28 August, 2002

(i) Article 14 and 'Res extra commercium' By catena of the decisions of the Supreme Court it is well settled that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) does not extend to carrying on business in intoxicants and such right is res extra commercium (outside commerce). State can create monopoly in itself or in any other Government agency for manufacture, sale and distribution of liquor and also give licence to citizens for the purpose of manufacture and sale by levying fee. It can also impose restrictions and limitations in intoxicant liquor trade. When the State parts with the privilege and permits trade and business in intoxicant liquor, the citizen has right to carry on trade and business subject to limitations imposed by the State. The State cannot make any discrimination to the citizens who are qualified to carry on trade. [See State of Bombay v. Sahara, AIR 1951 SC 318 Cooverjee v. Excise Commr., , Assam State v. Sristikar, , Nagendranath v. Commr. of Hills Division, , State Of Orissa v. Harinarayana, , Amar Chandra v. Excise Collector, , Nashirwar v. State of M.P, , Harshankar v. Dy. Excise Commr, , State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, , Doongaji v. State of M.P, , and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, , (supra)].
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Balaji Wines, Rep. By Its Licencee Sri K. ... vs The Prohibition And Excise ... on 28 June, 2001

9. It is too well settled to require elaboration that the trade in alcoholic beverages or intoxicants is not protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India; and having regard to the fact that this trade or business are res extra commercium, no person involved in the trade or business in intoxicants or alcoholic beverages can claim to have a fundamental right to such trade or business. What, however, follows is that wherever the State farms out its exclusive privilege in such trade in alcoholic beverages in favour of a citizen, such citizen has within a narrow spectrum, a right to be considered fairly qua other similarly circumstanced class of citizens viz., other dealers or traders in alcoholic beverages. The State may not under the rubric of uncanalised power, claim any prerogative to discriminate between different groups of citizens, who form one class qua the trade or business in alcoholic beverages vide COOVERJEE B. BHARUCHA Vs EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER & ORS.(1) , ASSAM STATE VS SRISTIKAR2, R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA3 , NAGENDRA NATH BORA & ANR VS. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS, ASSAM & OTHERS 4 , NASHIRWAR VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH5, HAR SHANKER VS. DEPUTY EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER6, STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS NANDLAL JAISWAL7, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. M/S ANABESHAHI WINE AND DISTILLERIES PVT LIMITED8, DOONGAJI & COMPANY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS9, M/s SONA LIQUORS [P] LTD &ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & Ors.10, KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA11, KHODAY DISTILLERIES & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS 12 AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. MCDOWELL AND COMPANY AND OTHERS13
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - G Raghuram - Full Document
1   2 3 Next