Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: drugs and cosmetics act 1940 23 of 1940 section 7a sections 5 and 7 not to apply to ayurvedic siddha or unani drugs Sorted by: recent Court: orissa Page 1 of about 2 results (0.214 seconds)

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 96(2003)CLT222; [2004]135STC187(Orissa)

..... we may at this stage refer to section 3(a) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 which defines 'ayurvedic, siddha or unani drug'. ..... 37 of the list of taxable goods reads as follows :'37.drugs as defined in clause (b) of section 3 of the 'drugs and cosmetic act, 1940, and ayurvedic, homoeopathic and unani medicines. ..... us, therefore, read the definition of 'drug' as mentioned in clause (b) of section 3 of the drugs and cosmetic act, 1940. ..... order to bring lal dantamanjan within item 37, the petitioner has to establish that it (lal dantamanjan) is a drug as defined in clause (b) of section 3 of the drugs and cosmetic act, 1940. ..... in view of what has been stated above, we have no hesitation to hold that lal dantamanjan is not a drug as defined in section 3 (b) of the drugs and cosmetic act, 1940 and, therefore, the same is exigible to sales tax under residual item 105.9. ..... we quote the same hereunder :'(b) 'drug' includes :(i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like ..... assistant commissioner has also further observed as follows :'...besides, it is written on the label pasted on the containers of the lal dantamanjan that it is meant for healthy gum and bad breath without mentioning any disease for which it is to be applied. .....

M/S. Life Line Medical Store (Day and Night) Vs. All India Institute o ...

Court : Orissa

..... the certificate under annexue-6, issued by the drug inspector, odisha also made it clear that since the applicant had applied for renewal within time, the licence would be treated as valid for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2011 and from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2016 as per rule-63 of the rules made under drugs and cosmetics act, 1940. ..... clause-5(e) requires that the tenderer should submit a self attested photo copy of the valid licence for sale of drugs/medicines issued by the appropriate drug controller under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 for carrying out 3 business of selling of medicines etc. ..... application has been filed for quashing of order under annexure-i so far as it relates to rejection of petitioner s technical bid on the ground that the petitioner has no.submitted self attested photo copy of the licence for sale of drugs, medicines issued by 2 the appropriate drugs controller under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 for carrying out business of selling of medicines. ..... rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rule-63 of the drugs and cosmetics rules, 1945 dealt with duration of licence. ..... no.coming to the question as to whether the aggrieved party is before this court or not, we are no.able to accept the contention advanced by the learned asst. .....

Nihar Ranjan Biswal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

..... in this application, under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to exclude his land from the purview of the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act, 1984 and to set aside the letter dated 9.11.2012 issued by the government of orissa in the housing & urban development department, vide annexure 16, and the letter dated 23.2.2013 issued by the member secretary, orissa water supply & sewerage board, vide annexure-18.2. ..... the prayer in the previous writ application was to quash the notifications issued by the government of orissa under sections 4(1) and 6 of the land acquisition act; and the letter dated 11.12.2009 issued by opposite party no.1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner to exclude the land from the purview of the land acquisition. ..... as we have already held in the preceding paragraphs that except making cosmetic changes after dismissal of the earlier writ application, the present application has been filed with identical prayer. ..... and others, (2004) 4 scc 281, the supreme court examine the issue of res judicata and observed that doctrine applied to give finality to lis . ..... they would apply, therefore, to all judicial proceedings whether civil or otherwise. ..... it equally applies to quasi-judicial proceedings of the tribunals other than the civil courts. . .....

Samar Kumar SwaIn Vs. Shri Subodha Kumar Nayak

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2010(I)OLR93

..... hence, the complainant seized 27 items of drugs and documents of the firm and lodged prosecution report against the accused-petitioner for contravention of sections 18(a)(vi) and 18-b of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 punishable under sections 27(d) and 28-a of the said act respectively. ..... the absence of any comma after the word 'stocks' clearly indicates that the clause 'stocks or exhibits for sale' is one indivisible whole and it contemplates not merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, section 27 of the act would not be attracted. ..... it is the settled principle of law that in order to establish the offence under section 27(d) of the act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the above ingredients and the possession simpliciter of the drugs of any quantity whatsoever would not fall within the mischief of section 27 of the act. ..... on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes,-(a) xx xx xx(b) xx xx xx(c) xx xx xx(d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this chapter or any rule made there under, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years and with fine;provided that the court may for any adequate .....

J.K. Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2007(210)ELT501(Ori)

..... 57,60,563/- should not be paid by it under section 11a of the central excise act, 1944 read with rule 9(2) and rule 57-1 of the said rules and penalty should not be imposed upon the company under section 11ac of the act and rules 57-1(4), 9(2), 173q and 226 of the ..... as mentioned in the show cause notice should not be paid by the company in cash under section 11a of central excise act read with rule 9(2) thereof and under rule 57-1 of the said rule being a central excise duty involved on 858.938 mts of meg and penalty should not be imposed under rule 9(2), 173q, 209, and 226 of the central excise rules for violation of rule 9(1), 52a read with rule 57f, 173f, 173g and 226 of the said rules. ..... conclusion of the tribunal that the assessee company had not satisfactorily explained the difference in quantities in the two sets of records, the statutory records under the central excise act and the central excise rules and the private records required to be maintained in terms of iso 9002, is not based on evidence and materials on record, has been arrived at ignoring relevant materials on record and is based on conjectures and surmises and by misdirecting itself in point of law and, therefore, the said conclusion is perverse ..... 72,13,259.60 under section 11a of central excise & salt act read with rule 9(2) and under rule 57-i of the said rules and penalty should not be imposed under rule 9(2), 173q, 209 and 226 for violation of rule 9(1), 52a read with rule 57f, 173f, 173g and 226 of the .....

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Serv ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR2006Ori42; 101(2006)CLT117; 2006FAJ124

..... he further submitted that in view of the 'no conviction certificate' dated 16.12.2003 granted by the drugs controller, orissa, who is the licensing authority, certifying that the petitioner has never been prosecuted and found guilty under any of the provisions of the drugs and cosmetic act, 1940 (for short, 'the act'), there was absolutely no reason on the part of the opp. ..... the other provisions under the said chapter of the act prescribes the procedures to be followed for analysis of the standard of a drug and section 27 thereof, prescribes that any person found to be manufacturing for sale or for distribution or selling or has stocked or exhibited or distributes any drug not of standard quality shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than five years which may extend for a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand.9. ..... with regard to the sub-standard nature of one of the batches of the drug, namely, 'cotrimal bolus', we find that section 18(a)(i) of the act prohibits sale of any drug which is not of a standard quality or is mis-branded, adulterated or spurious. ..... v-2006 and found on analysis that the same is not of the prescribed standard but it is strange that no prosecution has been lodged against the petitioner's firm or the petitioner, as the case may be, for an offence under section 27 of the act. .....

Kumar Assandas Vazirani and anr. Vs. Dr. Sunil Prakash Gupta and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 97(2004)CLT302; 2004CriLJ2214; 2004(I)OLR367

..... under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 ..... court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under section 24 of the act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the central insecticides laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. ..... having been deprived of such available right as provided under section 24(4) of the act, the same caused serious prejudice to them and on that ground alone the complaint is liable to be ..... learned counsel for the petitioners sri routray referring to section 24 of the insecticides act contended that as provided in the said section, the insecticide analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test, shall within a period of 60 days deliver to the insecticide inspector a ..... under sub-section (3) of section 24 report signed by the insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the insecticides inspector or the court before which proceedings are pending that they intend ..... where facts are more or less similar observed as follows :'sub-section (1) of section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the act, the accused have no remedy. .....

Minati Das and anr. Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3627

..... . section 34 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 provides as follows ..... the petitioners are also directors of the company, at this stage of the proceeding, it cannot be said that they were not in charge of and responsible for day to day affairs of the company and it will be open for them to prove during trial that they were not in charge of and responsible for day to day affairs of the company or had no knowledge about the affairs of the company and take the advantage of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 10 of the essential commodities act, 1955. ..... in 2000 (6) scale 578 observed as follows :--'from a perusal of section 141 it is evident that in a case where a company committed offence under section 138 then not only the company but also every person who at the time when the offence was committed, was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against the punished accordingly. ..... other than the company can be proceeded against under those provisions only if that person was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.it is true that the words of section 141(1) need not be incorporated in a complaint as magic words but it cannot also be disputed that substance of the allegations read as a whole should answer and fulfil the requirements of the ingredients of the said provision for being proceeded against for an offence .....

Kailash Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 88(1999)CLT335; 1999CriLJ1701; 1999(I)OLR365

..... the petitioner has been convicted under sections 27(d) and 28 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs. ..... it was further found that the accused was not authorised to stock the scheduled drugs and as such, he was liable under section 27(d) of the act. ..... stocked or exhibited for sale; and(4) in the licences produced by the prosecution, the list of medicines which could not be stocked, had not been indicated.the learned counsel for the state has supported the reasoning of both the courts ..... number on which the shop of the petitioner was located, but the prosecution has not tried to establish the identity of the shop searched;(2) the search and seizure were not effected in presence of any independent witnesses and since the question of identity was involved, the petitioner has been prejudiced due to such infraction of the provision contained in section 100, code of criminal procedure;(3) there is no evidence on record to indicate that the medicines allegedly seized had been .....

Rajendra Kumar Mohanty Vs. P.K. Das

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 86(1998)CLT239; 1998CriLJ3920

..... the present case was initiated by the drugs inspector, balasorc range, representing the state of orissa against the present petitioner under sections 27(b)(ii), 28, 28a and 27(d) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (for short 'the act'). ..... the drugs controller did not apply his mind but in a mechanical manner approved the recommendation of the drugs inspector for prosecution of the petitioner. ..... the prosecution has filed one letter dated 6-3-1991 to indicate that the drugs controller, orissa, has sanctioned prosecution of the complainant.learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the director of health of the state government is the proper authority and not the drugs controller as mentioned in section 33c of the act. ..... it has been contended that after the incorporation of section 36a in the act by the amending act of 1982, all offences under the act punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (i) of section 33(1) shall be tried in a summary way by a judicial magistrate, first class, specially empowered in this behalf of the state government or by a matropolitan magistrate and the provision of sections 252 to 255 (both inclusive) of the said code shall as far as may apply to such trial. ..... there is nothing to indicate that the drugs controller applied his mind to the facts of the case and considered the materials placed before him to come to the conclusion and then approved of the sanction. .....