Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)Section 67 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
Section 10 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
The Assam Excise Act, 1910
M/S. Arss Biofuel Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And. Ors on 13 December, 2017
APL496-16.doc
also placed reliance on the latest judgment delivered in a group
of Writ Petitions by a Division Bench (Justice A. S. Oka and
Justice Riyaz Chagla JJ) of this Court on 13 th December, 2017
and the learned Counsel would urge that the Bombay
Denatured Spirit Rules, 1955, insofar as they regulate the
possession, use, sell, import, export and transport of denatured
spirit after denaturation have been struck out by this Court as
unconstitutional. The learned Counsel has placed on record the
judgment of the Division Bench of M/s. Arss Biofuel Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. in Writ Petition No.8548
of 2004. It is the specific submission of the learned Counsel
that in light of the said judgment, the FIR registered against the
present applicants and presently pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai, deserves to be
quashed and set aside in exercise of power conferred under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Bihar Distillery And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 1997
The learned Counsel would submit
that an interim order granted in favour of Mr. Ketan Bhayani is
passed following the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of VAM Organic and also the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Bihar Distillery vs. Union of India &
Ors.2. In such circumstances, it is the specific submission of
the learned Counsel for the applicants that the French polish,
industrial solvent, thiner and other spirituous preparations are
governed by the provisions of Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 and therefore the applicants could not
have been charged with the offences punishable under the
Bombay Prohibition Act. Apart from this, the learned Counsel
1 AIR 2003 SCW 5463
2 AIR 1997 SC 1208.