Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Manish S. Pardasani vs Inspector State Excise on 7 January, 2019

Smt. Shaila Madhukar Gore And 3 Ors vs Union Of India And 9 Ors on 12 December, 2023

We have considered the said arguments raised by Shri Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Tamboly, however, we find that in the case of Manish S. Pardasani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manish S. Pardasni Vs. State Excise, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3163, whereby this Court had directed the Commissioner, State Excise to decide the appeals filed against the order of the Collector (Excise) whereby the Collector (Excise) had directed de-sealing of the shops of the license holders on certain conditions. This Court, while directing the Commissioner, State Excise to decide the appeal filed by the Superintendent of State Excise against the order passed by the Collector (Excise), had also issued directions in anticipation to the effect that if the Commissioner 5 AIR 1952 SCC 12 Basavraj 36/39 ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2023 09:15:00 ::: 2627.14-wp.docx State Excise passes any order adverse to the licensees then such order should not be given effect to by State authorities for a period of four weeks.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Shaila Madhukar Gore And 3 Ors vs Union Of India And 9 Ors on 12 December, 2023

We have considered the said arguments raised by Shri Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Tamboly, however, we find that in the case of Manish S. Pardasani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manish S. Pardasni Vs. State Excise, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3163, whereby this Court had directed the Commissioner, State Excise to decide the appeals filed against the order of the Collector (Excise) whereby the Collector (Excise) had directed de-sealing of the shops of the license holders on certain conditions. This Court, while directing the Commissioner, State Excise to decide the appeal filed by the Superintendent of State Excise against the order passed by the Collector (Excise), had also issued directions in anticipation to the effect that if the Commissioner 5 AIR 1952 SCC 12 Basavraj 36/39 ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2023 09:14:53 ::: 2627.14-wp.docx State Excise passes any order adverse to the licensees then such order should not be given effect to by State authorities for a period of four weeks.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nivedan Bhimrao Torne vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 18 October, 2022

15. However, insofar as the submission of Mr. Singhvi that the final order may not be directed to be given effect till sometime after it is passed so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Court and obtain appropriate relief is concerned, we are unable to accept such submission in view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta3 as well as a decision of fairly recent origin in Manish S. Pardasani vs. State Excise4.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

Farooq Ahmad Bhat & Ors vs Ut Of J&K& Others on 7 February, 2023

"To answer the said question, it is only apposite to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish S. Pardasani v. Inspector State Excise, reported in [2019(2) SCC 660]. In the said decision, the Apex Court while deprecating the judgment carrying certain directions issued in a writ petition filed apprehending issuance of an adverse order by an appellate authority held that the High Court should not have pre-empted the passing of any adverse order by an authority and further held that the settled position is that a court could stay or quash only those orders, which are impugned in the lis before it and in other words, only if an order is actually passed, that will be available for challenge and a writ petition P a g e | 10 founded only on an apprehension shall not be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Certainly, this Court will not be justified in passing an order not to execute a detention order when the petitioner himself is not certain whether such an order has been passed against him.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganesh Ramesh Jadhav vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 18 August, 2025

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide earlier order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure A-15) in OA No.488/2025, this Tribunal granted further fifteen days' time for giving fresh notice to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant may be reasonably protected, in case, any adverse order is passed on his representation. However, the aforesaid prayer was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 decided on 25.10.1951 and Manish S. Pardasani Vs. Inspector State Excise reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 2588 decided on 07.01.2019.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raunak Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 November, 2024

7. To answer the question as to whether a writ petition would be maintainable on a merely apprehension on violation of rights has been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish S. Pardasani Vs. Inspector State Excise reported in [2019(2) SCC 660]. In the said decision, the Apex Court while deprecating the judgment carrying certain directions issued in a writ petition filed apprehending issuance of an adverse order by an appellate authority held that "the High Court should not have pre-empted the passing of any adverse order by an authority and further held that the settled position is that a court could stay or quash only those orders, which are impugned in the lis before it and in other words, only if an order is actually passed, that will be available for challenge and a writ petition founded only on an apprehension shall not be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document
1