Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 10 appeal against non registration or cancellation Page 2 of about 2,478 results (0.279 seconds)

indofil Chemical Company Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC284

..... from the secretary (agriculture) to the government of himachal pradesh, shimla, under section 31 of the insecticide act, 1968, i hereby accord sanction to prosecute the manufacturers/firm/dealers for violating the insecticides act 1968, as suggested by you.therefore, you are directed to take further action in the matter under section 31 of the insecticide act 1968, accordingly.sd/-director of agriculturehimachal pradesh.24. the copy of this letter was ..... -cum-horticulturedevelopment officer,o/o. deputy director of horticulture,mandi, district mandi, h.p.dated:shimla-5, the 16 october, 2006.subject-sanction of prosecution under section 31 of the insecticide act 1968memo:reference your letter no. ddh (pp)(m)6-ll/05-6581 dated the 9th february, 2006, addressed to the licensing officer (deputy director of agriculture, mandi) and copy thereof .....

Ashok Agencies Represented by Its Manager Shri Ashok Kumar S/O Sri Puk ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2008KAR4299; 2008(6)AIRKarR16(DB)

..... behalf of the patties, it would be necessary for us to examine the relevant provisions of kvat act, insecticides act, 1968 and the rules thereunder, section 4 of the kvat act reads as under.section 4 - liability to tax and rates thereof-(1) every dealer who is or is required to ..... from item no. 16 of the schedule annexed to the insecticides act, 1968 that 'allethrin' and its stereo isomers (m) is shown as substance which come within the definition of 'insecticide' as defined under section 3(e) of the insecticides act, 1968.9. it is not in dispute that mosquito repellant contains ..... fertilizers, chemical fertilizer mixtures; bio fertilizers, micro nutrients, gypsum, plant growth promoters and regulators: insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides, fungicides, weedicides, herbicidessection 3(f) of the insecticides act, 1968, winch defines 'insecticide', reads as under:section 3(e) 'insecticide' means,-(i) any substance specified in the schedule; or(ii) such other substances (including fungicides .....

Rafel Del Riyo Managing Director Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... scc (cri) 218]. all under the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. (emphasis supplied) 23 crl.p.no.102512/21 the apex court in the afore-extracted judgment was interpreting insecticides act, 1968 , provisions of which are in pari materia with that of the seeds act. the apex court has clearly held that the right of the accused ..... launching of the prosecution, the court would not be seized of the matter in order to decide under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the act in the matter of sending the sample to the central insecticides laboratory. it is therefore to be expected that, prosecution will be launched expeditiously, at any rate before ..... the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory and sub-section (4) of section 24 of the act. under sub-section (3) of section 24, report signed by the inseclicildes analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence .....

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

Court : Orissa

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

..... passerby the learned s.d.j.m., bhubaneswarin 2(c) c.c. no. 4 of 1998 taking cognizance of offences under section 420 of the indian penal code read with section 3(k), 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968. criminal misc. case no. 2731 of 1999 is directed against the order dated 13.1.1999 passed by the learned s. ..... d.j.m., dhenkanal in i.c.c. case no. 2 of 1999 taking cognizance of offence under section 420 of the indian penal ..... disposed of.3. 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 signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. in the .....

Bakul Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1999)(63)ECC485

..... the appellants that in the absence of any definition of pesticide or insecticide in the central excise act we could safely seek guidance from its definition as given in section 3e of the insecticides act, 1968. since the appellants have produced certificates of registration of insecticides covering anaa 4.5% solution issued to them under section (3) of the insecticides act and they were manufacturing it under licence to manufacture ..... insecticides covering this item of technical grade granted under rule 9(2) of the insecticides rules and were registered with the govt .....

Shogun Organics Ltd. Vs.gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... etc. it was further revealed to the plaintiff that manaksia ltd. was granted a registration under section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 for indigenous manufacture of d- trans allethrin. owing to the fact that manaksia s licence was under section 9(4), which is a follow-on licence unlike a new/original licence, the plaintiff suspected ..... analysis was conducted by the in charge & chemist in the r&d department of the plaintiff. the witness admitted that the defendants registration under section 9(4) of the insecticides act was prior to the plaintiff s application for its patent. issues that arise for consideration 26. there are two parallel issues that have arisen ..... pre-existing processes have not been placed before the court. the plaintiff obtained its registration for d-trans allethrin under section 9(3) of the insecticides act in 1997, and the defendant obtained its registration under section 9(4) in 2007. the application by the defendant was made in 2006. there is no doubt that the .....

Agromore Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1987)(11)ECC194

..... namely (i) ethrel plant growth regulator (ii) ethrel latex stimulant (iii) fruitone and (iv) transplantons were classified as pesticides by the government of india under the insecticides act, 1968, section 3(e)(i)(ii) schedule - appendix i items 219 and 258.notification no. 55/75 does not give an explanation as to what is an ..... and merit exemption under notification no. 55/75 dated 1.3.1975 as amended. the appellant also pleaded that as per 4 schedules of the government of india insecticides act,1968 the said four products were pesticides. the appellant had also placed reliance on a letter dated 8.4.1982 from the under secretary, government of india, department of ..... cognate subject. she has pleaded that in view of the supreme court judgment cited by her, the mere fact that the products manufactured by the appellant fall in insecticides act, 1968, the revenue should treat the same as pesticide and the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of notification no. 62/78. she has referred to page .....

indofil Chemicals Company, Bombay and Others Vs. Kunwarsingh Madhaosin ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1996CriLJ1234

..... , heard both the sides. 2. the first respondent filed a complaint in the court below against the petitioners alleging offence under section 29(1)(b) and section 9(1)(3) and section 17(1)(c) of insecticides act, 1968. the allegation in the complaint is that the accused no. 1 is a company and accused nos. 2 to 14 are ..... as far as the question of sanction is concerned, there is no dispute that a sanction is a condition precedent for a prosecution under the act. section 31 of the insecticides act, 1968 clearly provides that no prosecution lies except with the written sanction of the state government. it is true that in the complaint there is no ..... as far as second question of limitation, we find that the offence is punishable with imprisonment of two years or fine as provided in section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968. the period of limitation is prescribed in section 466 of the code of criminal procedure which reads as follows : '468. bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of .....

Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)571; JT2002(Suppl1)SC516; 2002(5)WLN776

..... court against the company and its managing director and directors, alleging commission of offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968. by then the shelf-life of the insecticides in question had expired. section 29 provides that whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks, or exhibits for sale, or distributes any insecticides deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of ..... section 3(k), shall be punishable in the manner prescribed under the section.5. the appellants filed the application .....

Hindustan Pulverising Mills Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1995]83CompCas75(P& H)

..... production in charge, to represent the company, hindustan pulverising mills, delhi, which is an accused in criminal complaint no. 1392 of 1993 for an offence under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968. the sub-divisional agriculture officer, jagadhri, filed a complaint against three accused, namely hindustan pulverising mills, azadpur, delhi, shri d. v. devrani, chief chemist ..... direction to the judicial magistrate 1st class, jagadhru to allow the company, the first accused, to be represented by mohinder singh chauhan. 3. under section 53 of the insecticides act, 1968, whenever an offence is committed by a company every person who at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of that company or ..... is filed, the learned magistrate shall consider that application and pass an appropriate order in the light of the provisions contained in section 33 of the insecticides act and also under section 305 of the code of criminal procedure. the petition is accordingly disposed of.