Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 333 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs Delhi Administration And Ors on 22 March, 2001

Khadeeja Nargees vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2020

In the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 635], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional." Since the implementation of prohibition is the policy of the State, the Court cannot issue any direction for implementation of prohibition. More so, when Article 37 enjoins that the directives contained in Part-IV of the Constitution of India shall not be enforceable by any court of law, no direction could be issued to the State respondents to implement Article 47 of the Constitution of India."
Kerala High Court Cites 169 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madhu Wines And Ors. vs Special Chief Secretary, Revenue ... on 24 February, 2005

43. Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., v. Delhi Administration (supra). Through a policy, the Delhi administration enhanced the 'Minimum Sales Figures' (MSF) from 60,000 cases existing in the previous Excise year to 75,000 cases for the relevant excise year. The object was to test the acceptability of particular brand of liquor, in other places before it is licenced to be sold in Delhi. Dealing with the contention, the Supreme Court held as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - L N Reddy - Full Document

Ifb Agro Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs The Excise Commissioner And Ors. on 26 September, 2006

In this connection, it will not be inappropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. (Supra), relied upon by the respondents wherein it has been held that there is no fundamental right of a citizen to carry on a trade in liquor and each State has the power to formulate its own policy regarding such trade and where a policy of the Government is not tainted by mala fidesand is not unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary, the fact that a particular decision may hurt business-interests of a party would not justify interference by the judiciary. In the case before us, the only grievance of the appellants is that their business-interests will be affected. Therefore, the said reason cannot be a ground for interference with the decision taken by the Principal Secretary.
Calcutta High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Nct Of Delhi Through The Dept Of Excise vs S.P. Khanna on 7 November, 2005

45. Apart from the above, it is well settled that there is no fundamental right to the grant of license to do business of liquor. Trade in liquor is considered to be res extra commercium inasmuch as the State while exercising its power of parting with its exclusive privilege to deal with liquor has a positive Page 2207 obligation to see to the public interest and the public welfare. The state has thus a right to prohibit every form of activity in relation to intoxicants vide State of Punjab and Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd and Anr. ; Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. etc.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - M Katju - Full Document

Sabarmati Majoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandli vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2020

64. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that in exercise of power of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the 56 policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide, render the policy unconstitutional. Unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory or infringing any Statute or the Constitution, it cannot be a subject of judicial interference. However, if the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it may affect business interests of a party does not justify invalidating the policy. (Vide M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1447; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Padam Dev & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 510; Balco Employees' Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 350; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 SC 2642; and Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289).
National Green Tribunal Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Welcome Distillery Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Anr. [Alongwith Writ ... on 13 February, 2006

In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration, it has been held that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. The mere fact that it would hurt business interest of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, these are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The Courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S Kemkar - Full Document

Ajiz Khan (Miyan) vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2017

In respect of an argument that in exercise of power of judicial review, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc.. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn., (2001) 3 SCC 635, held as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2023

48. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the question of interference of the High Court under the power of judicial review so far as it relates to the policy decision of the State Government is concerned, the same is fit to be judicially reviewed if the same is based upon the arbitrary exercise of power and is having no justifiable reason therein. The fact of the present case is exactly the same and as such, this Court exercising the power of judicial review as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Federation of Railway Officers Association and Ors. vs. Union of India (supra); Directorate of Film Festivals and Ors. vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Ors. (supra); Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. (supra); Parisons Agrotech Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra); Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India and Others (supra) and; Union of India and Others vs. Bharat Forge Ltd. and Another (supra), is of the view that the impugned order requires interference.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Devesh Deshmukh vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment ... on 5 October, 2020

52. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that in exercise of power of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed 60 arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide, render the policy unconstitutional. Unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory or infringing any Statute or the Constitution, it cannot be a subject of judicial interference. However, if the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it may affect business interests of a party does not justify invalidating the policy. (Vide M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1447; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Padam Dev & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 510; Balco Employees' Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 350; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 SC 2642; and Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289).
National Green Tribunal Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next