Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Page 7 of about 3,410 results (0.221 seconds)

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... malhotra also referred to the provisions of the insecticide act, 1968, which by virtue of the explanation to rule 65 has been made applicable to the said rule regarding usage of the expression "insecticide", and, in particular, section 33 thereof, which relates to offences so committed by a company. section 33 provides that in regard to offences by companies ..... "nil colouring matter", it would be a case of adulteration within the meaning of section 2(j) of the 1954 act, if the article contains any colouring matter.24. mr. bhat submitted that the question as to whether the insecticide residue found in the product of the appellants amounted to adulteration or not, is a ..... submitted for such analysis.31. ordinarily, since the level of insecticide residue was within the limits of tolerance prescribed for carbonated water with effect from 17th june, 2009, the same would not attract the provisions of section 2(m) of the 1954 act or the consequences thereof, but the finding of the public analyst .....

Collector of Centrals Excise Vs. Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1987)(11)ECC179

..... shri sundar rajan also relied on scientific or technical works such as the "glossary of chemical terms" and the "encyclopaedia of chemical technology" and also the insecticides act, 1968.23. thus, both sides, between them, placed before us a large number of definitions or explanations of the various terms in question. we may now ..... substance specified in the schedule to the act, or such other substances (including fungicides and weedicides) as the central government may subsequently ..... out, this section of the book dealt with chemicals in agriculture.therefore, no general inference in the manner required by shri sundar rajan could be drawn on the basis thereof.7. shri sundar rajan then referred to the insecticides act of 1968 and pointed out that under section 3(e) of the act, "insecticide" would mean any .....

Ravi Parkash S/O Shri Gian Chand and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1991CriLJ2538

..... division bench of this court partaining to the cancellation of the licence under the insecticides act, 1968, in the last paragraph of the judgment had observed as under :--'the high court took the view that by enacting sub-section (1) of section 30 of the act, parliament had taken out the element of mens rea from consideration and, therefore, ..... sealed tins can be prosecuted for the offences under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 13 punishable under section 29 of the insecticides act read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971. the second controversy is regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 23 of the act qua the liability of the chairman and managing director ..... ground that he was not liable as he was neither the agent nor the distributor nor the manufacturer of the said insecticides and thus the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 30 of the act are applicable in his case and fully exonerate him. shri s.k. sheshadari chairman and managing director of the company .....

Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)6; [1998]92CompCas957(P& H)

..... therefore, the complaint as against him is not maintainable. the petitioner contends that he alone cannot be prosecuted in view of the provisions of section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968. 6. in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the respondent-state, the respondent-state has not chosen to file a reply. arguments of ..... .87 per cent. thus, the sample was confirmed to be misbranded under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968. 2. punjab beej bhandar, dharamkot, has committed an offence under sections 17/18/3(k)(i) and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, by selling misbranded insecticide. this weedicide buta chalor 50 per cent. was manufactured by chemico pesticides ..... ferozepur, after referring to the complaint and going through the documents opined that a prima facie case 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, is made out against all the accused, and accordingly summoned all the accused. 5. .....

G.V. Devasahyam Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2002CriLJ3609

..... -i (2)-77/7150 dated 21-4-1977 and in exercise of, the powers vested to me under section 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968. 1. bir pal, direct on of agriculture, haryana give my permission/consent for institution of prosecution under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 against shri mahinder parson of shri s. p. bansal and shri surjit pal son of shri s. p ..... as subsequent proceedings on the same.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint, annexure p-1, under sections 29(1) and 17(1)(a) of insecticides act, 1969 (for short hereinafter to be referred as 'the act') was filed by the state of haryana through deputy director of agriculture, kurukshetra (by name) against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer of .....

Murlidhar and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Departm ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

..... read with rule-26 of insecticides rules, 1971. in this notification various officers/employees have been notified to perform statutory functions under this act. at serial nos. 25 to 28 the applicants as well as respondent ..... insecticides act, 1968 whereas junior biochemist was not notified as such. the respondent no. 4 in her reply has stated that she has also been duly notified for carrying out these statutory duties. in this regard we have seen the notification dated 14.12.2011 issued under the powers conferred by section-20 of insecticides act, 1968 ..... . 2.2 the applicants have gone on to state that assistant director (chemistry) and scientific officers were discharging the statutory duties as per the insecticide act, 1968, whereas junior biochemist was not notified to discharge these duties. further for the post of deputy director (chemistry) which is the next higher promotional .....

State of Kerala Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products

Court : Kerala

..... active ingredient of the product is para-dicholoro benzene, which is an aromatic hydrocarbon having the properties of an insecticide. the said chemical, according to the learned senior counsel, is listed as an "insecticide" under the schedule to the insecticides act, 1968. the aroma or good odour of the product does not take it away from its essential qualities of repelling ..... and the sale by such brand name holder to the assessee should be considered as the first sale liable to tax and also the sale under section 5(2) of the act. the classification attempted by the assessing officer with respect to the product "odonil" was also objected to on the ground that essentially the product is ..... . we find from the assessment order in the instant case that such deduction has also been granted by the assessing officer. the very object of sub-section (2) of section 5 in shifting the levy was found to be a measure of augmenting the revenue by bringing to tax the value addition of the subsequent sale by .....

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Rajiv Khurana

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... and establishes that fact. the present case is of total absence of requisite averments in the complaint."11. the respondent submitted that sub-section (2) of section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 makes "other officers" liable, but that is essential liability not to the position and control of the company at the time of commission ..... that the complaint filed by the appellant before the trial court was sought to make the respondent vicariously liable under section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 for the alleged offence under section 29 of the act, whereas no role has been ascribed to the respondent by the appellant towards the commission of the alleged offence. it ..... . our quality control is handled by mr. rajeev khurana, regional technical director."4. it is submitted that section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 provides that:"33.offences by companies.-(1)whenever an offence under this act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was committed was in .....

State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1999(2)ALD(Cri)908; 2000CriLJ2962; JT1999(8)SC162; (2000)124PLR290; 1999(6)SCALE404; (1999)8SCC190; [1999]Supp3SCR451

..... challenged the three separate judgments of punjab and haryana high court quashing the complaints filed under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1963 (for short, the 'act'). high court exercised its powers under section 482 of the crpc (for short, the 'code') read with article 227 of the ..... constitution of india. section 29 of the act provides for offences and punishment. under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 29 whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks; or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide ..... been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the act. 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 .....

Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002(64)DRJ411

..... ) of clause (k) of section 3 of the insecticides act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') read with rule 27 of the rules framed under the act, for manufacturing, selling and distributing misbranded insecticides/mats. the complaint was also filed against the retailer as well as ..... . 1 is a company holding license under the insecticide act, 1971 for storage and sale of insecticides and petitioner no. 2 is the director of petitioner no. 1 company. they filed the writ petition for quashing of complaint no. 136/97, instituted against them by the plant protection officer/licensing officer, respondent no. 2, under section 29(1)(a) read with sub-clause (i .....