Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 28 notification of cancellation of registration etc Court: delhi Page 1 of about 2 results (0.030 seconds)

Crop Care Federation of India and Anr. Vs.union of India and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... impugning an order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the central government (appellate authority), rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners under section 10 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereafter the insecticides act ). the petitioners had preferred the said appeal against the decision of the registration committee (hereafter rc ) taken at its 370th ..... meeting held on 15.10.2016, to grant registration under section 9(3) of the insecticides act in respect w.p.(c) 8117/2019 page 1 ..... any application for grant of such registration. the petitioners had contended that in the circumstances, the grant of provisional registration under section 9(3b) of the insecticides act was without jurisdiction.13. on 18.07.2016, the petitioners also made a representation to rc alleging various deficiencies in the .....

Northern Minerals Limited Vs. Plant Protection Officer and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ159

..... april, 1991 itself, the shelf life of the product ultimately expired in july, 1991; and for that reason, petitioner's right granted to him under section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 was rendered illusory. 8. in reply, counsel for the state has stated that although admittedly, the application for reanalysis was moved by the petitioner on 11th ..... 1990 itself. according to the counsel for the petitioner, this request for reanalysis was made well within the period of 28 days as prescribed under section 24(3) of the insecticides act, 1968. in addition, it is also contended that on the very first appearance before the court on 11th march, 1991, an application was moved by the ..... a futile exercise and an abuse on the process of the court. consequently, complaint no. 30/01/91 dated 19.01.1991 under section 200 cr.pc read with section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 and the prosecution launched against the petitioner in that behalf, are quashed.15. the petition is disposed of.crl. m.a. no .....

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 .....

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 .....

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 .....

Crop Health Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2004)(166)ELT366TriDel

..... to the appellant by plant protection section of the department of agriculture, u.p. under the insecticides act. under the schedule of insecticides licence for manufacture the product in question is shown as item no. 56.certificate of registration of insecticides granted to the appellant under section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 contains details of the use of ..... and also by m/s.hindustan antibiotics ltd. pimpri, pune (a government undertaking) since long under licences obtained under the insecticides act 1968.reliance is placed on a declaration signed by hindustan antibiotics ltd. duly certified by excise department stating the use of said product as pesticide ..... points out that the product is being manufactured under licence issued to it under the insecticides act. this particular product is shown as serial no. 56 in the licence. the said licence has been issued by the plant protection section of the department of agriculture, u.p., lucknow, by the director, agriculture licensing .....

Dr. B.S. Phogat S/O Shri Daulat Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

..... learned counsel would contend that unless the re-designation and merger of the posts is notified, the post of weed specialists not being created under insecticides act, 1968 and without amendment of the rules, the applicant, if transferred to hyderabad, would be highly prejudiced as he would not be considered as feeder ..... cbi & rc and cil located at hyderabad and others are in kanpur and chandigarh. nppti at hyderabad, which imparts training, is not formulated under insecticides act, 1968.3. in the wake of 5th central pay commissions recommendations contained in para 56.21, ministry of agriculture by an order dated 28.5.2003 ..... scientific officer (bioassay) through union public service commission and was later on re-designated as deputy director in the bioassay division of cil, faridabad under the insecticides act, 1968.the recruitment rules for sr. scientific officer (sso bio) prescribed qualification of msc (agriculture) in agronomy (herbicides) with minimum five years research experience. .....

Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and o ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR2002Delhi167; 95(2002)DLT261; 2002(61)DRJ406

..... interim relief in the writ petition where the primary prayer is to set aside the orders under section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), passed by the registration committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the rc'), constituted under the act, granted in favor of respondent no. 4, i.e., m/s. e.i.d. parry ..... respondent no. 4 in m/s. eid parry (india) ltd., a company regd. under the companies act, 1956. 2. the dispute raised in the writ petition is that when an insecticide is granted registration under section 9(3) of the act after undergoing tests, the same tests have to be followed for a subsequent manufacturer and importer. the case ..... 's products. his plea is that the phrase 'same conditions on which the insecticide was originally registered' in section 9(4) of the act implies that the tests undergone by a section 9(3) registrant have to be emulated in the case of a section 9(4) registrant also. he further submitted that even the comparative tests done .....

Biochem Pharmaceutical and ors. Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 121(2005)DLT207; 2005(82)DRJ653

..... can be made.15. it may be stated now that the judgments on insecticides act as well as those on the drugs and cosmetics act will be relevant for the analysis. the insecticides act, 1968 has very similar provisions. both insecticides act and the drugs and cosmetics act require the sample to be divided in portions and one portion to be ..... unless it was the manufacturer of the drug under the drugs and cosmetics act whose name was disclosed under section 18a. both the acts require the report to be controverter within a statutory time without which the report of the government analyst/insecticides analyst would be final. on the basis of these statutory provisions, the ..... of government analysts.- (1) the government analyst to whom a sample of any drug of cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (4) of section 23, shall deliver to the inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form.(2) the inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one .....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Essen Synthetics (P) Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1987)(14)ECC169

..... his order dated 14-7-1983, inter alia, held that insecticides had the same meaning as defined in section 3 of insecticides act, -1968. the schedule annexed to the insecticides act, 1968 did not include the two products dbp and dmp as insecticides. the respondents did not hold registration under section 9(1) or licence under section 13(1) of the act ibid and for these reasons the two products could not ..... be considered insecticide within the meaning of the notification and merit exemption .....