Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 47 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. And Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 6 March, 1997
In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), the Supreme Court has summarised the law on the subject of trade and business in liquor. The decision has reiterated the law that when the State permits trade or business in potable liquor with or without limitations, the citizens have the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot discriminate between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business.
The Amending Act, 1897
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
Ever since State of Bombay v. F.N .Balsara, AIR 1957 SC 218, and up-to-date the consistent principle laid down by a uniform catena of binding authority is to the effect that the State has power to prohibit trades which are illegal, immoral and injurious to the health and welfare of the public, that citizens cannot have any fundamental right to trade or carry on business of liquor, that the State has the exclusive right or privilege in the matter of manufacture, trade or business in liquor and that it is within the discretion, of the State to devise the manner in which it may farm out such rights to licensees vide Cooverjee B. Bhagucha v. Excise Commissioner and the ChieJ Commissioner, Ajmer and others, , The State of Assam v. A.N. Kidwai, Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Shillong, ; R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla and another v. Union of India, ; Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, ; Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, ; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries Pvt., Ltd.,
; Doonagaji & Co. v. Slate of Madhya Pradesh and others, - M/s. Khoday Distilleries Ltd., case (supra).
Nashirwar Etc. Etc vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 1974
Ever since State of Bombay v. F.N .Balsara, AIR 1957 SC 218, and up-to-date the consistent principle laid down by a uniform catena of binding authority is to the effect that the State has power to prohibit trades which are illegal, immoral and injurious to the health and welfare of the public, that citizens cannot have any fundamental right to trade or carry on business of liquor, that the State has the exclusive right or privilege in the matter of manufacture, trade or business in liquor and that it is within the discretion, of the State to devise the manner in which it may farm out such rights to licensees vide Cooverjee B. Bhagucha v. Excise Commissioner and the ChieJ Commissioner, Ajmer and others, , The State of Assam v. A.N. Kidwai, Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Shillong, ; R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla and another v. Union of India, ; Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, ; Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, ; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries Pvt., Ltd.,
; Doonagaji & Co. v. Slate of Madhya Pradesh and others, - M/s. Khoday Distilleries Ltd., case (supra).
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
In Nandlal Jaiswal (supra) while declaring the applicability of Article 14 to situations where the State farms out its exclusive privilege to trade in liquor, a note of caution was however entered to declare that having regard to the nature of trade and business the Court should be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government and that in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity, would allow a large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating manufacture and trade in liquor. Governmental policy in this area, declared the Court, would be up held unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide.
Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975
61. The principles to the same effect, laid down in Har Shanker v. Dy. Excise and
Taxation Commissioner, and Nandlal Jaiswal (supra), have been reiterated in the above decision.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, , felicitously defend the scope of the equality injunctions underlying Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that any attempt to truncate the all embracing scope and meaning of this great principle ought not to be countenanced. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from the
motive inducing from the ante-chamber of the mind is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations it would amount to mala fide exercise of power hit by Article 14; mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal variations emanating from the same vice; the later comprehending the former; declared the Court.