Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 28 notification of cancellation of registration etc Page 17 of about 256 results (0.111 seconds)

WisconsIn Pub. Intervenor Vs. Mortier

Court : US Supreme Court

..... it does not. page 501 u. s. 601 i a fifra was enacted in 1947 to replace the federal government's first effort at pesticide regulation, the insecticide act of 1910, 36 stat. 331. 61 stat. 163. like its predecessor, fifra as originally adopted "was primarily a licensing and labeling statute." ruckelshaus v. ..... subdivisions, and regulatory authority, which it expressly delegated to the "state[s]" alone. the provisions on which he relies, however, undercut his contention. section 136t(b), for example, mandates that the epa administrator cooperate with "any appropriate agency of any state or any political subdivision thereof, in carrying out ..... field, and that certain provisions, including 136v(a), reopened certain portions of the field to the states, but not to political subdivisions, is unpersuasive. section 136v itself undercuts any inference of field preemption, since 136v(b) prohibits states from enacting or imposing labeling or packaging requirements that conflict with those required .....

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohi ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1960SC633; 1960CriLJ1002; [1960]2SCR821

..... inconsistent with article 19(1)(a) of the constitution on the 26th january, 1950.' question no. (ii). 'the restrictions imposed by section 3 of the u.p. special powers act, 1932, were not in the interests of public order.' in the usual course the matter was placed before the two learned judges who first heard the ..... a third judge, who agreeing with desai, j., gave the following answers to the questions referred to him : question no. (i). 'the provision of section 3 of the u. p. special powers act, 1932, making it penal for a person by spoken words to instigate a class of persons not to pay dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue, was ..... communication may be made directly, or indirectly and (x) shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. under this section a wide net has been cast to catch in a variety of acts of instigation ranging from friendly advice to a systematic propaganda not to pay or to defer payment of liability to government, any authority or .....

Seeds Man Association, Hyderabad and ors. Vs. Principal Secretary to G ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC1690; JT2004(2)SC247; 2004(2)SCALE385; (2004)9SCC56

..... for regulating sale of seeds of notified kinds and varieties. besides the aforesaid enactment, the central government has in exercise of power conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act made the seeds (control) order, 1983, which provides for licensing of dealers in seeds, besides appointment of inspectors and taking of samples ..... lots and losses at processing are returned to farmers only after the foundation seeds are certified as conforming to specifications, the lots are subjected to treatment with insecticides (cell phose, quick phose) and pesticides (thiram and barastin) at the time of packing. the company had filed certificates issued by the seeds certification ..... by such producer to ensure the quality of the seeds is not disclosed. similarly, there is no clear averment that on account of application of insecticides or chemicals and poisonous substances, the basic character of the article, namely, its consumption as food by human beings or animals is irretrievably lost and .....

Shukal and Sons Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

ram chand gupta, j.1. the present petition has been filed by m/s shukal and sons under section 482 of code of criminal procedure for quashing of complaint under section 3(k)(i), 17/18/21/29/30 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules 1971 framed thereunder.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole ..... that the same is fully covered by the decision of this court, annexure p3.6. hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is accepted and the complaint under section 3(k)(i), 17/18/21/29/30 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules 1971 framed there under alongwith all consequential proceedings arising there from, is, hereby, quashed.

United Phosphorus Ltd., Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR973

..... the apex court held that the accused were deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticide laboratory as permissible under subclause (4) of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968. considering the fact that by the time the matter reached the court, the shelf life of the sample had already expired ..... relied upon certificate of analysis issued by their own laboratory. the necessary sanction was accorded as required under section 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, on 1.4.1998 by the commissioner of agriculture. the insecticide inspector lodged complaint before the learned judicial magistrate, aurangabad on 24.4.1998.3. there is no dispute ..... of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken. the relevant provision contained in section 24(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, would make it amply clear that the report signed by the insecticide analyst shall be the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. there is deeming effect about its .....

Y.R.S. Rao Vs. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar, Andhra Prad ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1991LabIC1650; (1983)3SCC38b

a.d. koshal and; e.s. venkataramiah, jj.1. we have gone through section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968. we are of the view that under sub-section (3) of section 24, the report signed by an insecticide analyst shall be conclusive evidence only against a person from whom the sample had been taken and who had the ..... opportunity to notify his intention to contest its correctness as mentioned therein but had not availed of such opportunity.2. sub-section ..... its discretion at the request of either the complainant or of the accused cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the court under section 22(6) to be sent for test or analysis to the central insecticide laboratory which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the .....

Fauji Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2006CriLJ1386; 2006FAJ246

..... the parties and have gone through the records.5. at the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968, as under :24. report of insecticide analyst :(1) xx xx xx xx(2) the insecticide inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall ..... . as per the report the weedicide was found to be misbranded and as such the petitioners are said to have committed offences punishable under sections 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the act. show cause notice dated 9-1-1989 annexure p/3 was sent to m/s. goel rice mills, gurdaspur. petitioner no. 1 i.e .....

Anu Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2001CriLJ1551; 2000WLC(Raj)UC327; 2000(2)WLN480

..... petition under section 482, cr. p.c. in which it has been prayed that the complaint filed against the petitioners before judicial magistrate, ladnu district nagaur be quashed.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor.3. shiv prasad goyal was appointed as a inspector under the insecticides act, 1968 and ..... ladnu falls with in his jurisdiction. it is alleged that on 22-7-1994. m/s. kisan beej bhandar was checked and bheru singh, is proprietor, was found present. he was selling dimethoate 30% e.c. (an insecticide) and had stored the same in the shop. ..... to how the petitioners no. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were responsible for the business of anu products ltd. which is said to have manufactured the insecticides. yet the sanction mentions the names of the accused petitioners. the complaint does not disclose as to who was responsible for the conduct of the business of m/s .....

Paushak Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1990CriLJ1879

..... the business of the company and that the prosecution should have been filed against the company represented by its managing director. (2) section 33(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 says that whenever an offence under the act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of or was responsible ..... order1. this petition is filed under section 482, cr.p.c. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is the third accused in c.c. no. 216/89 on the file of the munsiff magistrate court, addanki. the case is filed under the insecticides act for misbranding some insecticides. in the cause title the third accused is shown as m/s. ..... or were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. with great respect to my learned brother, i am unable to follow the said decisions. what section 33(1) says is that every person who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the .....

Shantilal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1999CriLJ159

..... public prosecutor and perused the original record of the case.2. by this petition filed under section 482 cr. p.c. the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of criminal original case no. 80/87 under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, pending in the court of munsif and judicial magistrate, pali be quashed as the order ..... learned munsif and judicial magistrate on the first complaint clearly shows that the learned munsif and judicial magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence under section 29(1) of the insecticides act at any stage before passing the order dated 1st october, 85. in these circumstances, the order of dismissal of the complaint passed on 1st ..... are no averments and much less evidence to show that the accused nos. 4 and 5 are in any manner responsible for the alleged offence under section 33 of the insecticides act. on the basis of above submissions, it is prayed that the order of issuing process against the petitioners be quashed.8. the learned public .....