Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 225 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Himalayan Wine & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 28 June, 2016

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:47 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:49 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:39 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:49 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:43 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:50 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:04:04 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:02:52 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P. Through vs State Of Himachal on 3 June, 2022

4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 20:04:06 :::CIS 124 case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next