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

1976 Supreme(All) 101

G.C.MATHUR
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
K. P. Sui – Respondent


Advocates:
Standing Counsel, for Appellants; V.P. Mishra, for Respondents.

Judgement

G. C. MATHUR, J. :- (On difference of opinion between the Judges constituting the Division Bench before the Special Appeal came for hearing):

Consequent upon a difference of opinion between the learned Judges constituting the Bench hearing the Special Appeal and the writ petitions the following three questions have been referred to me for opinion :-

1. What is the true interpretation and scope of S. 41 (e) (v) of the U. P. Excise Act?

2. Whether the Excise Commissioner can make R. 13-B in exercise of his powers under the U. P. Excise Act?

3. Whether the closure of the licensed premises on Tuesdays as a condition in the licence of the petitioner became a binding term of the contract and the licensee could not be allowed to avoid it through a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution?

2. The U. P. Excise Act, 1910, makes provisions relating to the import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquors and intoxicating drugs. S. 3 of the Act defines in sub-ss. (11) and (12) "liquor" and intoxicating drugs. Sub-s. (13) defines "intoxicant" to mean any liquor or intoxicating drug as defined in the Act. S. 21 provides that no intoxicants shall be sold w
























































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