REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KRUSHNARAO VITTHALRAO GOLLAR Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GULABSINGH ANANTRAMSINGH THAKUR V. COLLECTOR,AMRAVATI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. SHEOSHANKAR BACHHOORAM PANDE [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIES LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RATNAKAR TANBAJI ITANKAR V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD, JABALPUR V. M/S VIJAYA TIMBER CO. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANIES DISTRICT I CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
AMBALAL PURSHOTTAM VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABADIN ALL THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
HAR SHANKAR VS. DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMR [REFERRED TO]
G SARANA VS. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. JAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR VS. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI CHAND VS. GRAM PANCHAYAT KARARIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MAGULU JAL VS. BHAGABAN RAI [REFERRED TO]
NILESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
VORA AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD VS. GOPALRAO NAMDEORAO POHRE [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH MANOHAR WAZALWAR VS. PURUSHOTTAM PARASRAM KOTANGALE [REFERRED TO]
JULLUNDUR CANTONMENT BOARD VS. FIRM HINDU KHANDAN MUSHTARKA MUNSHI RAM SRI RAM AND [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a common question involved in all these three matters relating to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to deal with the matters arising out of the orders passed by the Prohibition Officers under the Bombay prohibition Act, 1949. The Second Appeal No. 329 of 1996 is filed by Krishnarao Vitthalrao Gollar for considering whether any substantial question of law was involved, so that it can be admitted, whereas in respect of the two C. R. As. i. e. C. R. As. Nos. 801 of 1997 and 825 of 1997, this court passes the order. Rule, Heard forthwith by the consent of the parties.

(2.) ALL the three matters were heard by the Court at length. Both the parties have relied upon various authorities and the three matters require detail consideration while being disposed of. Due to paucity of time and this being the last day of working before vacation, this Court is disposing of all the three matters with short reasoning which are common and would give detail reasons after vacation.

(3.) SECTION 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :

Click here to view full judgment.

KRUSHNARAO VITTHALRAO GOLLAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address