Follow:
Recent Posts
- Author is an Advocate practicing at Madras High Court. Views are personal.
- திருநங்கைகளும் கடவுளின் பிள்ளைகளே: மறுவாழ்வுத் திட்டம் வகுக்குமாறு தமிழக அரசுக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு உயர் நீதிமன்ற தலைப்புச் செய்திகள் திருநங்கைகளும் கடவுளின் பிள்ளைகளே: மறுவாழ்வுத் திட்டம்
- [26/04, 10:31] sekarreporter1: Supreme Court Mandates Unified ICU Standards; Directs States To Prepare Immediate Implementation Action Plan https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/unified-icu-standards-states-implementation-action-plan-1612808 *Follow India’s No.1 Free Legal News Website To Get All Judgements Of The Supreme Court & Other Legal Updates:-* https://www.verdictum.in/social-media [26/04, 10:40] sekarreporter1: 👍
- 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking notice of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Possession for Personal Consumption) Rules, 1996, (G.O.Ms.No.75, P & E, dated 19.04.1996, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is revealed that an individual can carry 4.5 litres of Indian made Foreign spirits for his personal use. Here, in the present case, the petitioner was in possession of Napoleon Brandy (750 ml) – 1 bottle, Old Monk Rum (750 ml) – 1 bottle and Old Monk rum (180 ml) – 1 bottle, in total 1.68 litres. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:- “2.Possession of liquor for personal consumption:- No person shall possess the liquor mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, which have already been specified under Sub-clause (i) of clause (j) of sub-section (i) of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937), for personal consumption, in excess of the quantity specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof S.No. Liquor Quantity (in Litres)
- CRP (MD)No Views of the Court Here the suit was laid on the ground that the suit property was not acquired. But at the first instance, the plaint was returned on the ground as if the challenge was to the land acquisition. Secondly, the suit is laid under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act, where recovery of possession can be sought without establishing title. The distinction is well brought out in Sec.6(4). Third ground was that suit is not maintainable since under Sec. 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act, no suit is maintainable against the Government.
More
Recent Posts
- Author is an Advocate practicing at Madras High Court. Views are personal.
- திருநங்கைகளும் கடவுளின் பிள்ளைகளே: மறுவாழ்வுத் திட்டம் வகுக்குமாறு தமிழக அரசுக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு உயர் நீதிமன்ற தலைப்புச் செய்திகள் திருநங்கைகளும் கடவுளின் பிள்ளைகளே: மறுவாழ்வுத் திட்டம்
- [26/04, 10:31] sekarreporter1: Supreme Court Mandates Unified ICU Standards; Directs States To Prepare Immediate Implementation Action Plan https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/unified-icu-standards-states-implementation-action-plan-1612808 *Follow India’s No.1 Free Legal News Website To Get All Judgements Of The Supreme Court & Other Legal Updates:-* https://www.verdictum.in/social-media [26/04, 10:40] sekarreporter1: 👍
- 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking notice of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Possession for Personal Consumption) Rules, 1996, (G.O.Ms.No.75, P & E, dated 19.04.1996, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is revealed that an individual can carry 4.5 litres of Indian made Foreign spirits for his personal use. Here, in the present case, the petitioner was in possession of Napoleon Brandy (750 ml) – 1 bottle, Old Monk Rum (750 ml) – 1 bottle and Old Monk rum (180 ml) – 1 bottle, in total 1.68 litres. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:- “2.Possession of liquor for personal consumption:- No person shall possess the liquor mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, which have already been specified under Sub-clause (i) of clause (j) of sub-section (i) of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937), for personal consumption, in excess of the quantity specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof S.No. Liquor Quantity (in Litres)
- CRP (MD)No Views of the Court Here the suit was laid on the ground that the suit property was not acquired. But at the first instance, the plaint was returned on the ground as if the challenge was to the land acquisition. Secondly, the suit is laid under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act, where recovery of possession can be sought without establishing title. The distinction is well brought out in Sec.6(4). Third ground was that suit is not maintainable since under Sec. 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act, no suit is maintainable against the Government.