REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KARAN DILEEP NEVATIA Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

EAST INDIA TOBACCO CO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH; IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
KHANDIGE SHAM BHAT K KRISHNA BHATTA VS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER KASARAGOD:AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER KASARAGOD [REFERRED TO]
MAGANBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL MANIKANT TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
V O TRAGTOROEXPORT MOSCOW VS. TARAPORE AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
AVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GRAMOPHONE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. BIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED STATESMAN LIMITED KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VISHAKA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DEOKAR DISTILLERY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP NAYAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A VENUGOPAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
P B SAMANT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SONY INDIA LTD VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the import of foreign liquor viz. wines and distribution of the same under FL-I Licence No.113 granted by the Collector of Mumbai city. Respondent 1 is the Union of India, through the Commerce Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry. Respondent 2 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent 3 is the Commissioner of State Excise appointed under Section 3 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Respondent 4 is the Collector of Mumbai city.

(3.) Gist of the petitioner's case needs to be briefly stated. Sometime in the month of May, 2007, the petitioner filed an application with respondent 4 in the name of his proprietary concern, M/s. Kunal Vintners, for the purpose of obtaining a wholesale licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 known as "FL-I" for distribution of wines and liquor in the State of Maharashtra. The same was granted to the petitioner on 10/6/2008 being FL-I Licence No.113.

Click here to view full judgment.

KARAN DILEEP NEVATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address