Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
58 judgments · newest first · showing 1–58
The appellant, a clerk in the Osmanabad Sub‑Divisional Office, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe to influence a pending case under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The prosecution’s case relied on …
The petitioner, Laili Macchindra Guddawat, challenged a preventive detention order dated 30 January 2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Pune, alleging that the authority did not apply its mind and that the alleged offences bore no live link to public order. The State contended that the …
The petitioner, a liquor retailer, challenged an order directing him to pay full transfer fees for shifting his liquor licence after his shop was demolished for road widening. He argued that the transfer was involuntary and that later notifications exempting such transfers should apply …
Tirath Lalbahadur Maurya filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a detention order dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Surat Police Commissioner under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, on the ground that he was a "bootlegger". The petitioner argued …
Pankajkumar was preventively detained on 13 January 2026 by the Surat Police Commissioner under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, on the ground that his bootlegging activities threatened public order. He challenged the order through a special criminal …
Champaben Pravinbhai Jadav was preventively detained on 21 January 2026 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". She challenged the detention through a petition filed by her nephew, arguing that the detaining authority had no material …
Firoz @ Salim Hasambhai Shaikh was preventively detained on 13 January 2026 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his daughter, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to …
Arjunsingh Kirpalsingh Sardar was preventively detained on 17 January 2026 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his father, arguing that the detaining authority had no material …
The petitioner, Ashokkum... Lalvani, challenged a preventive detention order dated 24‑08‑2023 issued by the Commissioner of Police under the 1985 Act, alleging that his alleged bootlegging offences under the Prohibition Act did not threaten public order. The State argued that the petitioner was a …
Arjun @ Sunny Punambhai Marvadi was preventively detained on 15 January 2026 by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his wife, arguing that no material was placed …
The petitioner, Rameshchandra Ramlal Kakhujulaha, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a detention order dated 10‑01‑2026 that labeled him a “bootlegger” under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. He argued that the detaining authority had no …
Vijaybhai Ramshibhai Cudasama was preventively detained on 1 January 2026 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a bootlegger. He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his uncle, arguing that the detaining authority had no material showing …
Anilbhai Jethabhai Pangad was preventively detained on 31‑12‑2025 by the District Magistrate of Bhavnagar under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, on the ground that his boot‑legging activities threatened public order. He challenged the detention through a …
Vikrambhai Chauhan filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging his detention order dated 22‑12‑2025 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that no material was placed …
The petitioner, Rohitbhai Vaja, challenged a detention order dated 01.01.2026 issued by the District Magistrate under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. He argued that no material was placed before the authority to show that …
Rameshbha Bharabha Hathal was preventively detained on 31‑12‑2025 by the District Magistrate under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his cousin brother, arguing that no material was …
Virendrabhai Velubhai Parmar was preventively detained on 26‑12‑2025 by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 on the ground that he was a "bootlegger" whose activities allegedly threatened public order. The detainee, …
Vijaykumar Nanjibhai Katara was preventively detained on 28 April 2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public order and that the order was passed …
Himmatsinh Karansinh Vanzara was preventively detained on 31‑12‑2025 by the District Magistrate, Porbandar, under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a ‘bootlegger’. His father filed a special criminal application challenging the order, arguing that no …
Suraj @ Ravi Ashram Divakar, through his wife, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a detention order dated 19‑12‑2025 that labelled him a "bootlegger" under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner was detained …
Sandeep Laljibhai Parmar filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging his detention as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. He contended that the detaining authority had no material to show that his alleged offences disturbed …
Dilipbhai Jayantibhai Rathva, through his brother-in-law, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a detention order dated 22‑12‑2025 that labeled him a "bootlegger" under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The order, issued …
Gopalbhai Chauhan was detained as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 by a District Magistrate on 22‑12‑2025. He challenged the detention through a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that no material was placed …
The petitioners Bhagirath @ Banti Bhikhabhai Swamiji Prajapati challenged a detention order dated 25‑12‑2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, alleging they were a "bootlegger". The petition argued that no material was …
The petitioner, Bhaveshbhai Kotar, was preventively detained on 22‑12‑2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "bootlegger". He challenged the detention order, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public health, order or tranquility and …
Kamleshbhai Shanabhai Chavda was preventively detained on 22 December 2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a bootlegger. His wife filed a petition challenging the detention, arguing that no material showed any disturbance to public health, order or …
Vijaybhai Bhupatbhai Parmar, through his uncle, challenged a detention order dated 22‑12‑2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, labeling him a "bootlegger" under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that no material was placed …
Mahendrakumar challenged his detention as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, arguing that the Police Commissioner had no material to show a disturbance of public order. The State contended that he was a habitual offender and his activities threatened …
The petitioner, Vineshbhai Patil, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a detention order dated 16‑12‑2025 issued by the Surat Police Commissioner under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The order detained him as a …
The Gujarat High Court examined a petition filed by Sanjay Dahyabhai Rajput challenging his preventive detention under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, which labeled him a "bootlegger." The petitioner argued that no material was placed before the detaining …
The petitioner, Rameshbhai Joliya, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a detention order dated 15‑12‑2025 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The order detained him as a …
Arvindbhai Rupabhai Dihora, through his son, challenged a detention order dated 15‑12‑2025 that labeled him a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that no material was placed before the detaining authority to show that his alleged …
Dipakbhai Chandubhai Dabhi filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a detention order dated 15‑12‑2025 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The order was based on a single criminal case …
Rahulkumar Jerambhai Solanki challenged a detention order dated 15‑12‑2025 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 2 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, alleging that he was a "bootlegger" and that his activities threatened public order. The petitioner argued that …
The High Court of Gujarat considered a petition filed by Rajubhai Vasurbhai Vaghoshi, through his nephew, challenging his preventive detention under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that no material was placed before the detaining …
Dineshkumar, detained as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, challenged the preventive detention order dated 18‑12‑2025. He argued that the detaining authority had no material showing his activities disturbed public health, order or tranquility, and that …
Sachin @ Salang Dahyabhai Parmar was preventively detained on 21‑12‑2025 under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a bootlegger. He challenged the detention through a petition filed by his wife, arguing that no material showed his activities disturbed public …
The Supreme Court of India, in a 9-judge bench reference, addressed the scope of Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule (intoxicating liquors) and its interplay with Entry 52 of List I (industries controlled by the Union). The case arose from a challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a …
The Supreme Court examined challenges to the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016 and its Rules, which regulate dance performances in hotels, restaurants and bar rooms. Petitioners argued that provisions defining "obscene dance", licensing restrictions, punitive measures for tips, and …
The case arose from the 2009 hooch tragedy in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where spurious country‑made liquor containing methyl alcohol caused 147 deaths and 205 injuries. Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar (appellant) and Jayesh Hiralal Thakker (respondent) were charged under several sections of the IPC and the …
Alister Anthony Pareira was convicted for causing the death of seven labourers and grievous injuries to eight others by driving a car rashly and negligently while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court examined whether a person could be tried and convicted under both s.304(Part II) IPC …
The appellant, a liquor manufacturer, challenged the State's demand for supervision charges with retrospective effect and interest, arguing that a prior High Court decision had already settled the issue. The High Court dismissed the later writ petition, holding that the demand notices were illegal. …
The State of Maharashtra issued a demand for a fee under Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Rectified Spirit (Transport in Bond) Rules, 1951 against Nagpur Distillers, which purchases rectified spirit and extra neutral alcohol from other distilleries for manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The …
B.P. Patel, elected President of Anand Municipality, was arrested and placed in judicial custody for alleged offences under the IPC, Arms Act and Bombay Police Act. The Director of Municipalities suspended him under Section 40 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, which provides for suspension if …
The Supreme Court examined whether the Government of Maharashtra could demand additional supervision charges from Deokar's Distillery after the State revised its civil service pay scales with retrospective effect. The licencees had paid supervision fees in advance as required by the Bombay …
The State of Madhya Pradesh granted a D‑2 licence, in the form of a lease, to Mis. K.C.T. Drinks Ltd for manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The licence contained a condition that the licensee pay the full cost of excise supervisory staff posted at its factory. The High Court struck down this …
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri, an auto‑rickshaw driver, was arrested after police stopped his vehicle and found four gunny bags containing charas. The police officer who ordered the stop relied on verbal information and neither recorded it in writing nor forwarded it to his superior as required by …
Polychem Ltd., a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages, paid supervision charges in advance each quarter as required by Section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. After the government raised the wages and dearness allowance of its supervising staff retrospectively, it demanded a differential …
Three appellants were arrested in Gujarat and, after a police search, charas was seized from them. They were convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and Sections 65 and 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The appellants argued that the police had not informed them of their right, under Section 50 …
The State of Maharashtra raided a brewery and registered offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act in 1985. After a year, five charge‑sheets were filed on 21 November 1986 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), along with two applications: one seeking condonation of any delay in filing the …
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of amendments to the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 made by the Gujarat Legislature that required a permit for possession of "rotten gur" in excess of a prescribed limit and regulated its manufacture. They argued that the provisions exceeded the …
Gujchem Distillers India Ltd, a manufacturer of industrial alcohol, was required under a licence to pay supervisory charges to a staff appointed by the Gujarat State under Section 58(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The company challenged the constitutional validity of that provision, arguing …
The petitioner, Ayub, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 on grounds that he was a "bootlegger" and a "dangerous person" involved in several offences. The petition challenged the detention, arguing that the detaining authority had not applied …
The petitioners, industrial users of ethyl alcohol, challenged state statutes imposing a vend fee and other levies on industrial alcohol, arguing that such taxes were beyond the legislative competence of the states. The Court examined the constitutional distribution of powers, focusing on Entries 84 …
J.F. Pathan was detained on 12 October 1988 under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985. He had earlier been detained in 1985 under the National Security Act and in 1986 under the same PASA Act, both orders later quashed by the Gujarat High Court. The detaining …
The petitioner was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 on the grounds that he was a 'bootlegger' and a 'dangerous person' whose activities threatened public order. The detaining authority relied on four liquor‑related cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act and a …
Shroff & Co., a partnership dealing in wines and spirits, imported liquor into Bombay and stored it in a bonded warehouse under the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules. The appellants challenged the inclusion of countervailing duty in the assessable value for octroi, arguing that the …
The appellant, a liquor broker in Gujarat, was arrested for importing foreign liquor from Rajasthan and later detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985, sub‑section 2 of s. 3, to prevent him from acting prejudicial to public order. He challenged the detention on …
