Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Ram Lal vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 October, 2018
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
.
Himalayan Wine & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 28 June, 2016
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
.
1