Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ
XAVIER'S RESIDENCY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The Abkari Policy for the year 2014-15 and the consequent amendment of the Foreign Liquor Rules were challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions by two star, three star, four star and heritage hotel owners and unclassified hotel owners. The learned Single Judge as per the judgment dated 30.10.2014 in Xavier's Residency v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 419), dismissed the Writ Petitions in so far as they related to the challenge against Abkari Policy 2014-15 by the hotels classified as two star and three star and by hotels having no classification. The learned Single Judge set aside that part of the Abkari Policy, to the extent it excludes hotels having four star and heritage category from the eligibility to be granted FL-3 licence under the Foreign Liquor Rules, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Listen Article