Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 918 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003

R.Sarveswaran vs Union Territory Of Puducherry on 13 June, 2019

“46. Furthermore, the nature of power to be exercised by the Commissioner of Excise, namely, cancellation of licence on the one hand and confirmation of a sale and/or confirmation of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, on the other, stand on different footings. We are not oblivious of the fact that the appellants have no right to carry on any business in liquor. It is considered to be “res extra commercium”. (See State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. [(2004) 11 SCC 26] )”
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Assn.Of Unified Telecom S.P.Of ... on 11 October, 2011

40. On the other hand, we find from the long line of decisions in Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Others (supra), Government of A.P. vs. M/s Anabeshahi Wine & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd (supra), Assistant Excise Commissioner & Anr. vs. Issac Peter & Ors. (supra), State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Narain Prasad & Ors. (supra), State of M.P. & Ors. vs. KCT 58 Drinks Ltd. (supra), State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India (supra) and in Bharti Cellular Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), that this Court has consistently taken a view that once a licensee has accepted the terms and conditions of a license, he cannot question the validity of the terms and conditions of the license before the Court. We, therefore, hold that the TRAI and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement and to exclude certain items of revenue which were included in the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement between the licensor and the licensee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 185 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Indian Hotel And Restaurant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Home ... on 17 January, 2019

134. We are undoubtedly bound by the principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases, but these are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 574] , it was held that there is no fundamental right inter alia to do trafficking in women or in slaves or to carry on business of exhibiting and publishing pornographic or obscene films and literature. This case is distinguishable because of the unfounded presumption that women are being/were trafficked in the bars. State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.[(2004) 11 SCC 26] dealt with liquor trade, whereas the present case is clearly different. The reliance on New York State Liquor Authority [69 L Ed 2d 357 : 452 US 714 (1981)] is completely unfounded because in that case endeavour of the State was directed towards prohibiting topless dancing in an establishment licensed to serve liquor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 17 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Union Of India vs Association Of Unified Telecom Service ... on 24 October, 2019

87. Similar is the case law laid down in Har Shankar v. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, 1975 (1) SCC 737; Government of A.P. v. Anabeshahi Wine & Distilleries (P) Ltd., (1988) 2 SCC 25; Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter, (1994) 4 SCC 104; State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad (1996) 5 SCC 740, State of M.P. v. KCT Drinks Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 748 and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26.
Supreme Court of India Cites 116 - Cited by 86 - A Mishra - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Assn.Of Unified Telecom S.P.Of ... on 11 October, 2011

40. On the other hand, we find from the long line of decisions in Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Others (supra), Government of A.P. vs. M/s Anabeshahi Wine & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd (supra), Assistant Excise Commissioner & Anr. vs. Issac Peter & Ors. (supra), State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Narain Prasad & Ors. (supra), State of M.P. & Ors. vs. KCT 58 Drinks Ltd. (supra), State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India (supra) and in Bharti Cellular Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), that this Court has consistently taken a view that once a licensee has accepted the terms and conditions of a license, he cannot question the validity of the terms and conditions of the license before the Court. We, therefore, hold that the TRAI and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement and to exclude certain items of revenue which were included in the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement between the licensor and the licensee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Vijay Narayan Pallewar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 January, 2016

42. Dissenting observations of the Two Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:03:52 ::: Jt.wp1360.15 55 Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26, in para 50 or 171 to the effect that when a person has been granted a licence strictly in conformity with the Excise Act to carry on his business activities in terms of the statute operating in the field, the same can neither be termed as pernicious, obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public; or no public interest can be inferred by any court of law by going beyond the statutory provisions; or that even monopoly of the State either in itself or in any agency created by it for manufacture, possession, sale and distribution of liquor can be created only by a statute which must conform to the provisions of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution i.e. by making a valid law, by way of a regulatory legislative enactment; or on the propriety of perspective adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting such legal provisions need not also detain us more. This dissenting view does not lay down that such a trade can continue in defiance of a measure taken as per law in the larger public interest.
Bombay High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - V M Deshpande - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next