Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: delhi Page 3 of about 365 results (0.168 seconds)

Dr.R.Venkatachalam and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... g. p. mittal, j.1. the petitioners invoke inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (cr.p.c.) for quashing of the criminal complaint preferred against them for an offence punishable under sections 29(1) (a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (the act).2. the gravamen of the petitioners challenge before this court is that on 30.01 ..... .1997 respondent no.2 took a sample of mosquito repellant mats having insecticide d-trans allethrin 2% w/w, batch not kpb/105/m, manufacturing date .....

Kisan Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1996)(86)ELT543TriDel

..... that what they imported is not fungicide. drawing our attention to the insecticides act, 1968, he submits that 'dodine' is specifically included in the schedule to this act as a fungicide. no purity percentage has been laid down. in other words, the impugned goods under insecticide act itself are not qualified by any conditions in regard to purity to be ..... fact alive, even assuming it is a chemical, would not take away the character of 'fungicide' from the goods since cbec itself in the order issued under section 37b in para 6 held that pesticide chemicals and formulations will both be classified under heading 38.08 of ceta, 1985. assuming therefore, as held by the ..... of ascertaining the scope of entry in the tariff schedule it could not be used to determine or settle disputed classification of goods for which the relevant headings and section notes and chapter notes read with relevant judgments, if any, are the guides. in the case of mechanical packing industries pvt. ltd. v. union of india .....

Sujanil Chemo Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT546TriDel

..... curing a disease.2.3 he emphasised that licel is an insecticide and is registered under the insecticides act, 1968. section 3 of the said act defines insecticides as including any preparation containing a notified substance. licel contains malathion which is notified under the insecticides act; under section 5, registration is to be granted by a board which includes ..... the ld. counsel finally submitted that pharmasia case is distinguishable since mediker was manufactured under drug licence whereas the impugned product licel is manufactured under insecticides act; that the issue in pharmasia case was whether medikar was classifiable under chapter 30 or 33 of ceta and not under chapter 38; that licel ..... tariff which is governed by different principles and is not to be guided by the fact whether the product is registered under the drugs act or under the insecticides act.3. shri l.p. asthana, ld. advocate submitted that the impugned product is a non-alcoholic natural herbal oil base lice killer. .....

Pradeep Sharma & Anr vs.upl Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... , u.p. for manufacture and supply of sulfosulfuron (75%) + metsulfuron methyl (5%) wg. it was further revealed that defendants had applied for registration under section 9 of the insecticides act, 1968 for the composition of sulfosulfuron (75%) + metsulfuron methyl (5%) wg which is the composition as per the patents of the plaintiff. the plaintiff claimed that ..... the novelty and inventive steps of the invention not having been sustained, the defendant cannot now challenge the same by taking the defence under section 107 of the patents act. the plaintiff claimed that various reputed fao(os)(comm) 70/2018 page 2 of 9 companies had obtained licenses of its patents, including tata ..... in551 it was argued, fao(os)(comm) 70/2018 page 4 of 9 besides that the claims did not provide a clear description, contrary to section 10 (4) of the patents act. the defendant relied on decisions reported as s.p. chengalvaraya naidu vs. jagannath air (1994) sc853 bishwanath prasad radhey shyam vs. hindustan metal .....

Leeds Kem Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2001)(134)ELT294TriDel

..... was not a plant growth regulator to be classified under th 38.08 as held by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as it did not fall within the purview of the insecticides act, 1968. the cytokinin present in the seaweed extract used in the product was a growth promoter for plants and not a growth regulator as found by the collector. the ca ..... holding it to be a plant growth regulator on the reasoning of the adjudicating authority.he submitted that, by the mere reason of the product not being covered under the insecticides act, it could not be held that the product was not classifiable as plant growth regulator. it was not the revenue's case that plantozyme of the assessees was an ..... sl. nos. 2, 3 and 5 was confirmed as these scns were found to have been issued within the normal period of six months prescribed under section 11a(1) of the central excises and salt act (cesa). the assessees filed appeal no. e/836/94-c against the collector's decision as per the above order dated 31-12-1994 on the .....

s.n. Subrahmanyam vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... similar provisions contained in various statutes including section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (for short, negotiable instruments act ); section 34 of drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (for short, drugs crl. m.c. 1873/2015 & connected page 36 of 54 act ); section 17(1) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (for short, pfa act ); and section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short, insecticides act ).42. on corporate criminal liability, the following ..... appellant is responsible for the conduct of business of the company was explained , the prosecution against the appellant for the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act was quashed.50. while examining similar questions vis- -vis section 33 of insecticides act, in judgment reported as state of nct of delhi vs. rajiv khurana, (2010) 11 scc469 taking note of the law which has .....

Ram Swaroop vs.state of Delhi

Court : Delhi

..... it should be proved that the person making it knew that he was dying or believed himself to be in danger of approaching death. it was decided under section 29 of act 2 of 1855 which was similar to the english law with the exception that the declarant might have entertained hope of recovery].. (2) the admissibility of dying ..... interpret the words and phrases that nothing becomes otiose i.e. redundant. in a manner crl.a. 930/2001 page 11 of 23 58. dealing with section 32 of the evidence act and quoting with approval passages from the law of evidence by woodroffe and amir ali, in the decision air1959sc18 ratan gond v. state of bihar, the supreme ..... the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of having abetted the suicide of the deceased. the second issue that whether the dying declaration was admissible under section 32 of indian evidence act also came up for consideration before this court in sandy @ ved prakash (supra) wherein this court held- 48. with the advent of adversarial trials, it .....

Commissioner C. Ex. Vs. Unique Formaid P. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2000)LC173Tri(Delhi)

..... submission that the product cannot be classified as plant growth regulator as it is not covered under the insecticides act, 1968 as it is not the case of the revenue that the impugned product is an insecticide; further the product is not designed to control insect life that is harmful to man, either directly ..... for ease of reference only; for legal purpose, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.heading 38.08 applies to "insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, antisprouting products and plant growth regulators; disinfectants and similar products". the heading does not exclude the plant ..... does not mention anywhere the products which are vegetable based. there is no substance in these submissions and findings. both chapter 31 and 38 fall under section vi, the title of which is "products of the chemical or allied industries". if the contention of the respondent is accepted, the impugned product will .....

Zal Balsara Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(102)DRJ65

..... ') filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the complaint case no. 136/1997 titled plant protection officer/licensing officer v. singla agencies and ors. under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 ('act'). in the array of the accused in the complaint the petitioner was shown as accused no. 4 with the name 'jai balsara' although it should ..... read as 'zal balsara. ' 2. the complaint states that the insecticides inspector, government of delhi visited the shop of m/s. singhla agencies, 29/1, shakti ..... the trial some evidence comes on record, cognizance could be taken against the directors as well under section 319 crpc. each case depends upon its own facts. here, in reply to the notice served upon them by the insecticide inspector before filing of the complaint, petitioners did not take any stand as to who was .....

Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector

Court : Delhi

..... national organic chemical industries ltd., unique farmaid and gupta chemicals ltd., all of which arose under section 24(3) & (4) of the insecticides act.to sum up :103. 1. since the object and purpose of the pfa act is to eliminate danger to human life and health from the sale of unwholesome articles of food, strict adherence to the ..... following conclusion:"102. since the provisions of the prevention of food adulteration act and the seeds act are not in pari materia with the provisions of the insecticides act, it is not a sound principle of construction to interpret section 13(2) of the prevention of food adulteration act and section 16(2) of the seeds act, on the basis of the decisions of the supreme court, in .....