Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.75 seconds)
State Of West Bengal And Others vs New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited ... on 26 February, 2026
cites
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 86 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Bengal Excise Act, 1909
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003
State of Punjab and another v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and another, reported
at (2004) 11 SCC 26
22
2026:CHC-AS:338-DB
State Bank Of India vs V. Ramakrishnan on 14 August, 2018
118. Accordingly, the ratio, on which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held in State
Bank of India (supra)17 that the concerned provision of statute was
clarificatory and retrospective, is not applicable to the 2020 Notification at
all.
The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952
60. Again, in McDowell‟s case6, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that due to the
vicious and pernicious nature of intoxicating liquors, dealing in the said
commodity is res extra commercium (outside commerce). The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court also took into consideration Article 47 of the Constitution of
5
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, reported at (1952) 1 SCC 1
6
State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., reported at (1996) 3 SCC 709
21
2026:CHC-AS:338-DB
India, which mandates the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition in
such businesses. In the said context, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court justified
the prohibition and severe restrictions imposed on liquor sales. It was
observed that the nature of business is an important element in deciding
reasonableness of the restriction.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
68. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court went on to observe that it must be taken to be
the law where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of
giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas "or licences" or
granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its
sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but
its actions must be in conformity with a standard or norm which is not
arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the
Government in the matter of grant of largesse, including award of jobs,
10
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, reported at
(1979) 3 SCC 489
24
2026:CHC-AS:338-DB
contracts, quotas, "licences", etc., it was held, must be confined and
structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standards or norms
and if the Government departs from such standards or norms in any
particular cases or case, the action of the Government would be liable to be
struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure
was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in it itself
was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
The Companies Act, 2013
State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc vs Mcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc on 21 March, 1996
60. Again, in McDowell‟s case6, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that due to the
vicious and pernicious nature of intoxicating liquors, dealing in the said
commodity is res extra commercium (outside commerce). The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court also took into consideration Article 47 of the Constitution of
5
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, reported at (1952) 1 SCC 1
6
State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., reported at (1996) 3 SCC 709
21
2026:CHC-AS:338-DB
India, which mandates the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition in
such businesses. In the said context, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court justified
the prohibition and severe restrictions imposed on liquor sales. It was
observed that the nature of business is an important element in deciding
reasonableness of the restriction.