Advanced Search Results

Dr. Ashok Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Environment

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 26, 27 and 36; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 32, 39, 41 and 42; Clean Air Acts

Reported in : AIR1997SC2298; JT1997(5)SC151; 1997(3)SCALE782; (1997)5SCC10; [1997]Supp1SCR14; 1997(2)LC127(SC)

considering the recommendations of the Expert Committee and after consultation with the Registration Committee set up under the Insecticides Act 1968 cancelled the Certificate of Registration in respect ofAaldrin, restricted the use of Dieldrin, for Locust Control in desert … registration, if any, granted in respect thereof), as it deems fit, depending on the circumstances of the case.16. Section 36 is the rule making power of the Central Government.17. An examination of the aforesaid provisions of the Act

Prabhakar Tulshiramji Mankar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 17, 18 and 30(3); Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Rule 10

Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR34; 2005(2)BomCR268; 2005(1)MhLj228

of Insecticides holding licence Nos. AMT/203, AMT/283, AMT/320, AMT/336 and AMT/66 respectively issued under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules framed thereunder. On 29th August, 1990, the petitioners … by the licensing authority set aside.;A bare perusal of the orders which are at Annexure 32 to Annexure 36, shows that the orders came to be passed without application of mind. No reasons are assigned. What is

Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Vs. Techno Shares and Stocks Limited and ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(13), 2(36), 32, 32(1) and 47; Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 52; Indian Contract Act, 1872; Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Sections 11; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 6; Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Sections 17; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 22; Cantonments Act, 2006; Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 31; Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 13; Off-shore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Sections 31; Patents Act, 1970; Copyrights Act, 1957; Trade Marks Act 1999; Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Sections 2(4); Societies Registration Act, 1860; Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1)

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3801; (2009)225CTR(Bom)337; [2009]184TAXMAN103(Bom)

2006 is mandatory. To manufacture, sale and distribution of insecticides, licence is mandatory under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. To explore minerals, licence is necessary under the Off-shore Areas Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 2002. To manufacture, … be construed restrictively so as to apply to licences relating to acquisition / user of intellectual property rights. 36. The argument advanced by the counsel for the assessees that since the BSE card is a capital asset

M/S.Saidharani Shakambari Pvt. Lt Vs. The Commissioner and Director of ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : MRTP

the respondent along with the said Memo, it is stated that these products are not covered either under Insecticides Act, 1968 or under Fertilizer Control (Order) Act, 1985. The substance of the Memo is that since these products are … and punishment are provided in Section 29. The Central Government was given the power to make rules in Section 36. The State Government is also empowered to make rule under Section 37. In accordance with the rule making

Knight Queen Industries (P) Ltd. Through Its Authorised Signatory Sh. ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 3A, 3A(1), 3D, 4, 21 and 21(2); Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 7, 8A and 15; Uttar Pradesh Trdde Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2000; Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 - Sections 21 and 21(2); Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 9(4); Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act; Gujarat Sales Act, 1969; Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 - Sections 6; Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act; Central Excise Act; Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Constitution of India - Article 136; Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Rule 19(3) and 19(4); Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948 - Rule 41(1) and 41(7); Customs Act; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 2; Sales Tax Law

Reported in : [2006]145STC226(All)

using chemicals for manufacturing the finished goods which have been treated as 'insecticides' under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and photostate copies of the Certificate of Registration of the license issued under Section 9(4) of the 'Insecticide' … originally two items which are relevant for the purposes of the case. They were items Nos. 6 and 36;Item 6 'Vegetables-Except when sold in sealed containers ',Item 36 'Betel leaves'.The Schedule was amended by the C.P. &

Joint Director of Agriculture (inputs) Directorate of Agriculture, Che ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1996CriLJ530

upon the respondent to show cause why suitable action should not be initiated under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for the manufacture of Mis-branded chemical. While acknowledging the receipt of the show-cause notice, the respondent submitted an … Rules is also said to be in excess of the rule making powers of the Central Government under section 36(2) of the Act while adverting to Sec. 9 of the Act, Rules 21, 23 and 24(2) of

Gene Campaign . Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

use in the farmer's field without due approval from the CIB&RC would attract appropriate legal action under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Rules, 1971, made under the said Act Writ Petition (Civil) No.115 of 2004 Etc. Page 82 … Similarly, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, casts a duty on the Central Government to protect biodiversity as per Section 36 of the said Act. In this regard, reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Gramophone

Present: Mr.Arun Chandra Advocate Vs. Stae of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Land Acquisition

quashing of criminal complaint (Annexure P-2) under Section 3 (k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rule 27 (5) of the Rules, 1971 and all the consequent proceedings … is that on 28.7.1999 the premises of petitioner was checked. During checking, complainant found 24x5 litres of Monocroptophos 36% SL. lying in the stock. Complainant selected one five litres pack bearing batch No.087AP70 having manufacturing date 4/99

D.K. Jhaver Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33

Reported in : [1996]87CompCas236(P& H)

complaint annexed as annexure P-1 with this petition, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, and for quashing consequent proceedings arising therefrom.2. Briefly stated, … Pvt. Ltd., Madras, who is a manufacturing concern and is manufacturing monocrotophos 36 per cent. Vipan Kumar Sanjay Kumar, New Grain Market, Faridkot, is a … Harphul Singh Brar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for

Vahanvati Agro Centre and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 24(3) and 24(4)

Reported in : (2003)3GLR1965

in Mehsana District for offence punishable unde Sections 3, 17 and 18 read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act'). The said complaint has been registered before the said Court as Criminal Case No. … respondent visited the shop of the first petitioner at Sidhpur and collected a sample of insecticides Monochrotophos - 36 p.c. w.w. manufactured by the above said company. That appropriate procedure was followed for collecting the sample. The