ABT Limited, rep., by its Senior Manager, Tamilnadu v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the circumstances, all the writ petitions are dismissed
Judgment
Operative part
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 24392, 31451, 32154 and 34431 of 1997; 4992, 11887, 12626, 13105 and 33387 of 2008; 26031 of 1999; 157, 5214, 12983, 20296 of 2000; 3914, 15545, 19471 and 22266 of 2001; 916, 4954, 8671, 8677, 14483, 15276, 15377, 20378, 22948, 24132, 24776 and 24779 of 2002; 101, 14756, 16948, 24166 and 27067 of 2003; 8157, 8541, 8977, 13875 and 18574 of 2004; 10099 and 26905 of 2006; 15282, 15931, 18073, 19665 and 22120 of 2007; 2502, 4851, 5367, 5405, 6014, 6115 and 9482 of 2008 PC: (per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Learned counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, state that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed in view of the reference answered by the Full Bench, dated 26.06.2015, in Writ Petition No.20296 of 2000 and batch, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P. and another vs. Sharma [1] Gouda . In the circumstances, all the writ petitions are dismissed following the judgment of the Full Bench, dated 26.06.2015, passed in the aforementioned batch of writ petitions. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, shall also stand closed. There shall no order as to costs. ________________________ DILIP. B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 12.04.2016 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 42
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.