Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 6 other committees Page 15 of about 243,469 results (0.564 seconds)

Jindal Brothers and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1993CriLJ3691

..... for quashing of complaint dated 2-4-1992 (annexure p-7) filed by baldev singh, insecticide inspector against the petitioners 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 pending in the court of judicial magistrate, gidderbaha.2. the facts as narrated ..... in the complaint may be briefly recapitulated.on 9-9-1991, insecticide inspector, gidderbaha visited the shop ..... vide annexure p-3 a request was made to the chief agricultural officer, faridkot to send the counter sample for testing to the central insecticides laboratory under section 24(4) of the insecticides act. this request of the petitioners was not acceded to by the chief agricultural officer. on 3-12-1991, petitioner no. 1 presented .....

M/s Cheminova India Ltd. Vs. The State Of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the respondent no.2 the 1 slp(crl.) no.4144 of 2020 quality control inspector, bhikhiwind, district tarn taran, punjab for offences under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short, the act ), was dismissed. the petition was allowed by the high court for other accused, who was working as godown incharge, and quashed the ..... , attari, district amritsar under 1 [email protected].(crl.)no.4102 of 2020 section 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971.3. on 10.02.2011, insecticide inspector, attari, district amritsar, inspected the premises of firm m/s. navneet singh on .....

Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of A.P. Vs. Tropi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1999(5)ALD243; 1999(5)ALT512

..... . intending to carry on business in andhra pradesh viz., supply of insecticides, the respondent approached ..... insecticide with its registered office at chennai. it is registered with the central board of insecticides and is having a valid and subsisting registration certificate, issued under section 9 of the insecticides act, 1968, (central act 46 of 1968) (for short 'the act'). it has also obtained a licence under section 13 of the act for manufacture of the permitted insecticides ..... in the state of andhra pradesh immediately. aggrieved thereby the respondent filed the writ petition.3. on an analysis of the insecticides act, 1968 and the inspecticides rules, 1971, the learned single judge found that the 'principal certificate' in terms of the statutory rules is .....

M/S Chandan Pesticides and Another Vs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... against the petitioner m/s chandan pesticides and another without examining above facts or making any specific observation with regard to their liability under section 30(3) of the insecticides act, 1968. the initiation of criminal proceedings against any person should not be taken lightly. before launching the prosecution, the government officials/sanctioning authority ..... seeking quashing of complaint titled state of punjab versus m/s chandan pesticides and others . filed for the offence punishable under section 29 read with sections 3(k).17, 18 and 33 of insecticides act, 1969. sachin mehta201408.02 15:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-14989 of ..... is whether the liability of petitioners is prima facie made out as per provisions of section 30(3) of the insecticides act which provides as follows:- (3) a person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of .....

Devanshi Impex P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... to human beings. as may be seen, the aforementioned provisions of the said section 38 of the insecticides act, 1968 are unambiguous and leave no scope for interpretation. essentially, the exemption from the provisions of the said act would apply to those insecticides that are used for household purposes etc or for other than insecticidal purposes. thus, import of items listed under schedule 3 of the said ..... chemical, can be used for insecticide purpose and as they are covered under the insecticide act, 1968, the appellant is required to register with central insecticide board (cib). as the appellant has not obtained registration under the insecticide act, 1968, the impugned goods were held liable for confiscation, and, accordingly the same were confiscated absolutely and penalty under section 112(a) of the customs act, 1962 has been imposed on .....

Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas and Others

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

..... control laboratory of state agricultural department, haryana which has declared the samples as misbranded, after carrying out chemical analysis of the same. learned counsel invited our attention to section 3(k) of the insecticides act, 1968, in which the definition of misbranded had been given. learned counsel argued that the sample in question does not qualify to be called misbranded in accordance with the ..... provisions contained in section 3(k). moreover, if it is a misbranded insecticide, it is bound to be phytotoxic. learned counsel has also drawn our attention to some interrogatories sent to .....

Kishanchand Assanand Gursahani Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2002CriLJ2366

..... by the hon'ble supreme court that the words of section 141(1) (in the present case, the provisions of section 33(1)) need not be incorporated in a ..... be covered by section 33(2) of the said act.6. in 'k.p.g. nair v. jindal menthol india ltd. (2000) jt (suppl) (sc) 519, the hon'ble supreme court had considered the provisions of section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, which are pari materia with the provisions of section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968. it was held ..... v.m. jain, j.1. this is a petition under section 482, cr.p.c. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of, the criminal complaint dated 19-3-1997, under the insecticides act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder, copy annexure p-z, the summoning order dated 19-3-1997, copy annexure p-5 and the .....

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 .....

Madan Dangi and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1987CriLJ138

..... , patti, district amritsar, in consequence of first information report no. 144, dated may 23,1984, of police station patti registered for offences under sections 3k(viii), 17(1), 18(1)(c) read with section 24(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 and section 420, indian penal code.2. the facts as narrated in the petition, may be briefly recapitulated. a letter was addressed by the chief ..... numbers (a) and (b) of para 7 of the petition. let us examine the same.4. the learned counsel has referred to the provisions of section 3(k)(viii) of the insecticides act, 1968 which provides that an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded if it has a toxicity which is higher than the level prescribed etc. etc. the straight contention in this behalf .....

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 .....