Reebok India Company Through Its Executive Director (Finance and Operations/Chief Finanancial Officer) Mr. Vishnu Bhagat Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary Department of Consumer Affairs and ors.

Decided On : Jan-31-2009

Court : Karnataka

LAW: Section 2 and Section 39, Section 73, Section 1(3)(d, Rule 34, Section 83(2)(zd, Rule 2(e, Section 2(b, Section 1(3)(d, Section 2(b, Section 1, Section 1(3, Section 1(3)(d, Section 1 of the Act, Section 83 of the Act, Section 1(3, Chapter-II, Chapter, Section 2(b, Section 2(b, Section 2(b, Section 2(b, Chapter-II, Rule 6, Rule 6 and Rule 33, Constitution

PERSON: Mohan Reddy, Quash, Summons, Annexure-'C;(e, interalia, Sri, erusdem generis, Bopanna, Anr, ILR2008KAR3370, Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni, Rule 2A, Ramesh Mehta v., Act.14

NORP: J.1, Mandamus, Rules

DATE: Footwear, 29-03-2006, 5.4.2006, 1976, 1977, 8-04-2006, 15-07-2008, 2003, 24-11-2000, 26-09-1977, 2, 3, 39, 2006, 2935, the year 1977, Rule 2(q, 2003, 75, 26-09-1977, 2, 3, 39, the present day, 2, 3, 39, 26.09.1977, 2004, Rule 2(1, Rule 2(1

ORG: Belgaum, Sections 39, the Compounding Authority, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Criminal, the Central Government, Philips India Limited v. Union of India 2002, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Titan Watches Limited, Measures Department, Eureka Forbes Ltd., Union of India 2003, the Appellate Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Central Government, Parliament, the Central Government, Learned Counsel, Learned Counsel, the High Court, State Of Maharashtra and Ors, AIR, the Central Government, Learned Counsel, Learned Counsel, Jayanthi Food Processing, Khaitan Electricals Ltd., The Union of India, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Titan Watches Limited, AP, the Bombay High Court, AIR 2006 Bombay, the Central Government, Kerala AIR 1960, the Supreme Court, the Central Government, the Central Government, State, State, Sections 1, Sanwal Chand Singhvi AIR 2004, the Apex Court, Explanation, the Bombay High Court, Maximum Retail Price, Court, T.T. Private Limited v. Union of India, AIR, KAR, Learned Central Government Counsel

ORDINAL: 4th, 4th

CARDINAL: 63, 23(1, 26, 6, 33, 2, 140, 2, 83, 26-09-1977, 2(1, 2007(121)ECC1, 6, 1, 293, 83, 3, 1960]3SCR887, 3, 111, one, 83, more than 15, 3, 5, two, 1, 3, 6, 79

WORK_OF_ART: the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities, Legal Metrology Weight and, Commodity in Packaged form' under Section 2(b

PRODUCT: Respondent No.4, ALD 742, Rule 33

GPE: India, Bombay, Subash, Kataria, Mumbai, Kataria, xxx(b, Kataria

TIME: hour and the day

QUANTITY: 1 am

LOC: Act.12