SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1037

V. N. KHARE, BRIJESH KUMAR, ARUN KUMAR
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Jagjeet Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-The common question involved in all the above noted three appeals is as to whether the contractors running the liquor shops under licence, issued by the State, in Uttar Pradesh are entitled to remission of licence fee for the period during which the liquor shops were ordered to be closed under Section 59 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (for short the Act ). The licensees in all the three cases, being the highest bidders for the group of shops in question, their bids were accepted and thus they were running the shops in the concerned areas. In the month of December, 1992, the structure in Ayodhya was demolished. As a sequel thereof disturbances and tension prevailed at several places in the State and the shops involved in the first two appeals noted above, were ordered to be closed during the period curfew was imposed in the areas concerned. In so far it relates to the group of shops involved in the third appeal, they were ordered to be closed during the period of imposition of curfew due to communal disturbances between November, 1991 January, 1992, in Aligarh.

2. In the above noted Civil Appeal No. 4673 of 1997, the High Court by means of the impugned judgme






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top