Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (4.04 seconds)
Naya Bans Sarv Vyapar Association ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 November, 2012 cites

Public Services Tribunal Bar ... vs State Of U.P. & Another on 29 January, 2003

6. The counsel for the Delhi Government has contended that challenge to a legislation can be either on the ground of lack of legislative competence or on the ground of violation of fundamental rights and neither of which W.P.(C) Nos.7292/2011 & 4392/2012 Page 6 of 21 grounds is pleaded or urged. Reliance in this regard is placed on Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2003 SC 1115. Attention is also invited to the Preamble of the legislations in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 448 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003

7. The counsel for the applicant World Lung Foundation (South Asia) has argued that there is no distinction between a wholeseller and a retailer and that there is no right to deal in noxious substances and the same is always subject to conditions which may be imposed while granting the privilege to deal therein. Reliance is placed on State of Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 26. A copy of the extracts of the report on Tobacco Control in India published by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India is also handed over to show that the most susceptible time for initiation of tobacco use in India is during adolescence and early adulthood i.e. in the age group of 15-24 years and majority of users start using tobacco before the age of 18 years, some even start as young as 10 years; that such early age of initiation points to an urgent need to plan effective interventions for this vulnerable age group and that one of the major goals of any tobacco control effort is to prevent people from starting or experimenting with tobacco and the target group should be W.P.(C) Nos.7292/2011 & 4392/2012 Page 7 of 21 the youth who are primarily non-users and are vulnerable as the industry especially targets them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 194 - Cited by 555 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Godfrey Phillips(I)Ltd.& Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 20 January, 2005

11. Though the High Court of Allahabad in Varshney General Sales v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0148/1994 has held that tobacco could not be placed at par with liquor, as hazardous to health, and to trade wherein there could be said to be no fundamental right and which aspect remained undealt in the appeal therefrom reported as Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2005) 2 SCC 515 but over the time the hazards of tobacco seem to have overtaken the hazards of liquor, leading to the legislation such as COTPA.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 111 - R Pal - Full Document

Madras City Wine Merchants' Asson. And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 27 July, 1994

Similarly, in Madras City Wine Merchants' Assn. v. State of T.N. (1994) 5 SCC 509 and in Ramesh Chandra Kachardas Porwal v. W.P.(C) Nos.7292/2011 & 4392/2012 Page 10 of 21 State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 722 it was held that nothing can be expected to remain static in this changing world of ours and a market which is suitable and conveniently located today may be found to be unsuitable and inconvenient tomorrow on account of the development, congestion or for a variety of other reasons. The Parliament, in the year 2003, while enacting COTPA, in the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof noted that tobacco is responsible for an estimated eight lakh deaths annually in the country, that the treatment of tobacco related diseases and loss of productivity caused therefrom was costing the country almost `13,500 crores annually, offsetting completely the revenue and employment generated by tobacco industry and described the objective of COTPA as to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors and to protect them from becoming victims of misleading advertisements, all to achieve a healthier lifestyle and protection of right to life enshrined in the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 293 - Full Document

Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981

Similarly, in Madras City Wine Merchants' Assn. v. State of T.N. (1994) 5 SCC 509 and in Ramesh Chandra Kachardas Porwal v. W.P.(C) Nos.7292/2011 & 4392/2012 Page 10 of 21 State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 722 it was held that nothing can be expected to remain static in this changing world of ours and a market which is suitable and conveniently located today may be found to be unsuitable and inconvenient tomorrow on account of the development, congestion or for a variety of other reasons. The Parliament, in the year 2003, while enacting COTPA, in the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof noted that tobacco is responsible for an estimated eight lakh deaths annually in the country, that the treatment of tobacco related diseases and loss of productivity caused therefrom was costing the country almost `13,500 crores annually, offsetting completely the revenue and employment generated by tobacco industry and described the objective of COTPA as to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors and to protect them from becoming victims of misleading advertisements, all to achieve a healthier lifestyle and protection of right to life enshrined in the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 212 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next