LawMirror.com

Results of prevention of food adulteration act

Showing : 311-320 of 438 Results

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Ad interim injunction - Trade Mark - Prior user - Plaintiff using mark `Malikchand' but not much publicized - At a subsequent point of time defendant started use of mark `Malikchand' in a large scale - At relevant time, neither party had a registered trade mark for the respective marks claimed by them - A number of cases..........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(ii) -- Offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Conviction - High Court acquitted accused in appeal as prosecution not able to make out a case - No reason to interfere with order of acquittal...........

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 14 -- Adulterated 'Cloves' - Accused producing Bill/Cash Memo of manufacturer - It is a legal and valid warranty which cannot be disbelieved - Conviction and sentence unsustainable...........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i) -- Conviction under Food Adulteration Act - Accused faced trial for 19 years - Accused released on Probation though minimum sentence is provided under the Act...........

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i) -- Catechu (betal-nut) - Sample found adulterated - Not mentioned in Panchnama that the seized substance was catechu (edible) - It cannot be said that seized substance was selling for edible purposes - Accused acquitted...........

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2005
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) -- Catechu (betal-nut) - Provision of S.13(2) of the Act not complied with - Ex.P16 sent by registered post but original postal receipt not produced and photo copy proved without permission of Court u/s 65 of Evidence Act - Without proof of original document such evidence is not reliable - Accused acquitted...........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2004
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section S.13(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1995, Rule 9A -- Sample - Found to be adulterated - Report of Public Analyst sent to accused prior to institution of complaint in Court whereas Rule 9A requires that report of Public Analyst be sent to accused after institution of complaint in Court - Rule 9A is directory -..........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2004
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1995, Rule 9A -- Sample - Found to be adulterated - Delay in sending report of Public Analyst or delay in filing complaint in Court - It is irregularity - Accused not entitled to acquittal...........

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2004
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) -- Second analysis - In absence of an application by accused for second analysis of sample by Director, accused cannot complain that he was deprived of his right to have the second sample analysed by the Director - Mere delay and laches on the part of the complainant in getting the summons served was not, in the..........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2004
Details

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a)(i), and 7(1), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 44A -- Kesari Dal - Sale forbidden by Rule 44-A which came into force on 6.4.2000 - Sale of Besan mixed with Kesari Dal prior to coming into force of said rule - Conviction set aside...........

Showing : 311-320 of 438 Results