Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 Maharashtra Section 134 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: bombay prohibition act 1949 maharashtra section 134 Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 334 results (0.743 seconds)Ashok Organics Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-17-2000
Reported in : (2001)1GLR38
the said section 143 the rules are known as the bombay denatured spirit gujarat amendment rules 1988 3 the petitioners of the aforesaid persons then the cost of supervision of such prohibition and excise or police staff as it may deem proper validity of demand under section 58a of the bombay prohibition act for maintenance of the excise staff for supervision of the the provisions of section 58a of the bombay prohibition act 1949 the manufacturers are duty bound to pay the amount and claim the deponent has further stated that the state of maharashtra also collect administrative charges at the rate of 20 ps powers conferred by clause u of sub section 2 of section 143 of the bombay prohibition act 1949 to amend the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTisrail @ Israr Pahelvan Nazirahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-19-2000
Reported in : 2001CriLJ2209; (2001)1GLR306
b 65 a 65 e 81 and 116b of the bombay prohibition act iii one f i r was lodged by c r no prohibition 193 of 1998 under the bombay prohibition act had already been registered in prohibition station north and making representation against the order of detention 8 of the act and therefore the order of detention has become bad in the samein contravention of the provisions of bombay prohibition act 1949 and further that all the said six accused including detenu in case of sophia gulam mohd bham v state of maharashtra ors reported in 1999 6 scc 593 the words grounds of the act and that wrong exercise of power under section 9 2 of the act has affected the detenu s
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSylvia Leo Carvgalho Vs. the Collector of Mumbai and Another
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-20-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR4; 2000(3)BomCR158; (2000)2BOMLR9; 2000(2)MhLj781
therefore would not be covered under rule 5 of the bombay prohibition privilege fees rules 1954 rule 5 cannot be extended would not be covered under rule 5 of the bombay prohibition privileges fees rules 1954 rule 5 cannot be extended nor the government treasury and submit the original challan for further action in the matter the demand of rs 97 000 from sub section 2 of section 143 of bombay prohibition act 1949 rule 5 reads thus fees for transfer of a licence 1993 in writ petition no 352 of 1993 state of maharashtra and others v smt pushpalata decided on 17 2 1994 powers conferred by clause u of sub section 2 of section 143 of bombay prohibition act 1949 rule 5 reads thus
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAbdul Hameed Manjur Ahmed Shaikh and anr. Vs. S.C. Fulambrikar @ Phula ...
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-26-2000
Reported in : (2001)2BOMLR987
act and sections 66 1 b and 81 of the bombay prohibition act 1949 4 accused pleaded not guilty their defence and sections 66 1 b and 81 of the bombay prohibition act 1949 4 accused pleaded not guilty their defence was sections 66 1 b and 81 of the bombay prohibition act 1949 4 accused pleaded not guilty their defence was of 66 1 b and 81 of the bombay prohibition act 1949 4 accused pleaded not guilty their defence was of total which is in mohd hussain babamiyan ramzan u state of maharashtra head note b is relevant which is reproduced below b any other case narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act 1985 section 25 r w section 29 indian evidence act 1872 section
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAvadh Bihari Amrutlal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-11-2000
Reported in : (2000)3GLR506
for offence punishable under section 66 1 b of the bombay prohibition act 1949 for short the act and was sentenced w of the act the government has made the bombay prohibition medical examination and blood test rules 1959 for short the by the rule and having performed every part of the act in accordance with the procedure prescribed 7 shri joshi has under section 66 1 b of the bombay prohibition act 1949 for short the act and was sentenced to undergo simple in this authority a case of kisan vs state of maharashtra reported in air 1979 sc 1284 is referred to in 255 2 of cr p code for offence punishable under section 66 1 b of the bombay prohibition act 1949 for
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSunanda Pandharinath Adhav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-17-2000
Reported in : 2001(1)BomCR809; (2001)1BOMLR710; 2001(1)MhLj167
no 4 which is a public trust registered under the bombay public trusts act is running in all 13 schools out of supervision charges from the alcohol manufacturers under the bombay prohibition act 1949 retrospectively and it was held that the recovery is a public trust registered under the bombay public trusts act is running in all 13 schools out of which 11 charges from the alcohol manufacturers under the bombay prohibition act 1949 retrospectively and it was held that the recovery of revised to the petitioners it is evident that the government of maharashtra for the first time vide government resolution dated 13th may
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVijay Damaji Gaidhane Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-05-2000
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)965; (2001)3BOMLR126; 2001(1)MhLj159
strength of cases relating to violation of provisions of the bombay prohibition act the petitioner could not be classified as dangerous of cases relating to violation of provisions of the bombay prohibition act the petitioner could not be classified as dangerous person matter of public order it is the magnitude of the activities and its effect on the even tempo of life of state of maharashtra ors and sunil bhagat v state of maharashtra and ors supra have in a similar situation taken similar detention on various grounds including that the criminal case under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTEmma Charlotte Eve Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)65
punishable under sections 65 a and 65 b of the bombay prohibition act on the allegations that he and his servant an intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the bombay prohibition act 26 in order to connect the appellant with the the addressee was not warranted by the indian post office act keeping in view of the aforesaid material discrepancies in the be completely excluded from consideration sharad birthichand vs state of maharashtra 1984crilj1738 thus the circumstance that on 28 3 1996 the 7 sections 2 viib 8 a 50 a 54 and section 76 ca of the said bill are relevant for purposes
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSurat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-2000
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1248
of isha steel treatment bombay v association of engineering workers bombay anr reported in 1987 illj427sc it has been held that judgment office is directed to sent the writ of this order forthwith 28 petition dismissed 249 of 1992 along with written relevant laws and is governed by the bombay industrial relations act 1947 and the model standing orders framed for the banking in any part of the country including the state of maharashtra would get entitled to be insured as per the beneficial industrial disputes act read with clause bb thereto the relevant section reads as under 2 oo retrenchment means the termination by
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTState of Maharashtra Vs. Ghanshyam K. Zaveri and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-18-2000
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)276; 2001CriLJ1629
pointed out either in the 1996 act or in the bombay court fees act which can be construed as a different c of the act which is worded as follows 18 prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics for article 3 of schedule i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed in view of the provisions of judge of this court in the case of state of maharashtra v r a chandawarkar reported in 1999 3bomlr394 it cannot section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT