Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Jubilant Life Sciences Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secy Excise – Respondent
Per : Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present petition was initially filed for quashing the order dated 12.02.2012 passed by District Magistrate (Licensing Authority) by which the M.A.-4 license of the applicant was suspended for committing repeated violation of Rule 17-D, 17-E, 17-F, 17-G of U.P. Poisons (Regulation of Possession and Sale) Rules 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules 1921”) as well as non-obtaining the license of M.A.-2 in pursuance of order dated 28.05.2011 with further direction to show cause why his M.A.-4 license may not be cancelled. Subsequently, an amendment was also made in the writ petition with the permission of this Court dated 12.11.2018, by which vires of Rule 17-B(b), Rule 17-D(d), Rule 17-F was challenged on the ground that the same is beyond the power of the State Government under Section 2 r/w Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919.
3. The petitioner is a company that purchases methyl alcohol to use it for industrial purposes for which the petitioner company had also obtained license M.A.-4 as per R
The State Government has the authority to regulate the possession and sale of methyl alcohol under the Poisons Act, and the relevant rules are valid.
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
The court upheld the validity of the Liquor Policy prohibiting public servants from holding liquor licences, affirming the State's authority to impose such conditions in public interest.
The Collector's power under Section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is broad, allowing closure of multiple places selling intoxicants for public peace.
The court ruled that petitioners were not criminally liable under the Poisons Act, affirming that they held valid licenses and there was no negligence resulting from the incident leading to the FIR.
The State had no legislative competence to levy Excise Duty on rectified spirit not fit for human consumption, and the imposition of Excise Duty on presumptive production of liquor was ultra vires to....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
