Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)
Vijay Kumar Singhal S/O Late Salek Chand ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through The ... on 24 May, 2005 cites

Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927

"The rule laid down in Taylor v. Taylor that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, was adopted for the first time in India by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor. The question for consideration was whether the oral evidence of a Magistrate regarding the confession made by an accused, which had not been recorded in accordance with, the statutory provisions viz. Section 164 Cr.P.C. would be admissible. The First Class Magistrate made rough notes of the confessional statements of the accused which he made on the spot and thereafter he prepared a memo from the rough notes which was put in evidence. The Magistrate also gave oral evidence of the confession made to him by the accused. The procedure of recording confession in accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. It was held that Section 164 Cr.P.C. having made specific provision for recording of the confession, oral evidence of the Magistrate and the memorandum made by him could not be taken into consideration and had to be rejected.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 629 - Full Document

Cooverjee B. Bharucha vs The Excise Commissioner Andthe Chief ... on 13 January, 1954

It may be mentioned here that the State Government has exclusive right and privilege to deal in intoxicants. It is well settled by the numerous decisions of the Apex Court that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants and the State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants, its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. See, The State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318; Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, ; State of Assam v. A.N. Kidwai, ; Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398; Aman Chandra Chakraborti v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura, ; State of Orissa v. Hari Narayan Jaiswal, ; Nashirwar etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 171 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

The State Of Assam vs A. N. Kidwai, Commissioner Of ... on 31 January, 1957

It may be mentioned here that the State Government has exclusive right and privilege to deal in intoxicants. It is well settled by the numerous decisions of the Apex Court that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants and the State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants, its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. See, The State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318; Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, ; State of Assam v. A.N. Kidwai, ; Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398; Aman Chandra Chakraborti v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura, ; State of Orissa v. Hari Narayan Jaiswal, ; Nashirwar etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

It may be mentioned here that the State Government has exclusive right and privilege to deal in intoxicants. It is well settled by the numerous decisions of the Apex Court that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants and the State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants, its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. See, The State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318; Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, ; State of Assam v. A.N. Kidwai, ; Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398; Aman Chandra Chakraborti v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura, ; State of Orissa v. Hari Narayan Jaiswal, ; Nashirwar etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs Collector Of Excise, Government Of ... on 3 May, 1972

It may be mentioned here that the State Government has exclusive right and privilege to deal in intoxicants. It is well settled by the numerous decisions of the Apex Court that there is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants and the State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants, its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. See, The State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318; Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, ; State of Assam v. A.N. Kidwai, ; Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398; Aman Chandra Chakraborti v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura, ; State of Orissa v. Hari Narayan Jaiswal, ; Nashirwar etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 125 - I D Dua - Full Document
1   2 3 Next