Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 6 other committees Page 18 of about 243,469 results (1.431 seconds)

M. Yusuf and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1639; 2002(5)WLC793; 2002(1)WLN192

..... cr.p.c. has been filed by the accused petitioners, who are ., abu road and ors. (1), for the offence under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1968') pending in the court of judicial magistrate, first class, abu road be quashed.2. it maybe stated here that dealer m/s. abu road krishi kraya ..... . on 22.8.1992, the learned judicial magistrate, abu road took cognizance against the accused petitioners and others mentioned in the complaint for the offence under section 29(1)(a) of the act of 1968 and thereafter, notices were issued to the accused petitioners as well as to the dealer by the court.thereafter, on behalf of the dealer m/s. ..... not effected on the present accused petitioner upto 3.12.1992.4. in this petition under section 482 cr.p.c., looking to the above facts, it has been submitted by the accused petitioners that since the date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 4.1.1991 and date of expiry was 3.12.1992 and till then .....

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Food Inspector and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2009CriLJ2224; 2009(1)KLJ665

..... tolerance limitmg/kg(ppm)----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4----------------------------------------------------------------------------xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx----------------------------------------------------------------------------explanation: for the purpose of this rule:(a) the expressions 'insecticide' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the insecticides act, 1968 (46 of 1968);(b) unless otherwise stated:(i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(ii) all foods refer to raw agriculturalproducts moving in commerce.(3)xxxxxxxxxxxxxx(emphasis supplied - unnecessary portions omitted)22. ..... scientific community as to what tests are to be followed in the analysis of an article, the central government can settle the, controversy by formulating rules under section of the act insisting that specified tests have to be conducted. similarly, if there be a controversy as to what infrastructure of materials or personnel, is necessary to conduct a .....

Sonic Electrochem and anr Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)92; AIR1999SC41; JT1998(5)SC408; 1998(4)SCALE488; (1998)6SCC397; [1998]3SCR1102; [1998]111STC181(SC)

..... entry 129 is erroneous. in support of this contention mr. salve referred to the certificate of registration in favour of the appellant issued under section 9(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, the leaflet and the approved label of the commodity in question, the formulation contents of the said commodity and the chemistry of the active ..... ingredients and submitted that all these documents unequivocally indicate the product in question to be an insecticide. the learned counsel also submitted that an exemption ..... hand the learned judges have merely held that jet-mat could be an insecticide coming within entry 18 of part iv of schedule ii. in the orissa case under the notification issued under section 6 of the orissa sales tax act pesticide was exempted from levy of sales tax and the question for consideration was .....

Ajay Handa Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2002

..... .63%. in this way, you by keeping this insecticides at your shop and by selling this misbranded insecticide, have directly violated the provisions of section 3k(1) and 18(2), of the insecticides act, 1968 and have also violated the insecticides rules, so why not your licence for selling insecticides may be cancelled for your above action.you within ..... r-2 and r-3 respectively. after obtaining necessary consent under clause 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, this prosecution was launched against the petitioner and manufacturer according to written consent. a copy of written consent under section 31(1) is enclosed as r-2.4. it has been further stated that before launching ..... n.k. kapoor, j.1. petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short 'the act') read with section/rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971, (for short 'the rules') and also for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising on the basis of the said .....

Sh. Hanuman Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1993CriLJ124

..... the dealer had received the product manfactured at the premises of the present petitioner. the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub-section (6) of section 22 of the insecticides act, 1968, which is reproduced as under:-'(6) the insecticide inspector shall restore one, portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he ..... of the code of criminal procedure and challenged the summoning order passed against him in a complaint under sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticide act 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the insecticide rules 1971. the main allegation in the complaint is that aldrin 30% e.c. is manufactured by m/s. agro chemicals, jaipur and when its sample .....

Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Hindu Super Store

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [2006]145STC223(All)

..... is 'd-allethrin 4 per cent'. in that case also the certificate of registration in favour of the appellant issued under section 9(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, the leaflet and the approved label of the commodity in question, the formulation contents of the said commodity and the chemistry of ..... the active ingredients were submitted. even then it was considered to be mosquito repellent and not as insecticide or pesticides. on the same reasoning the kachhuwa chap agarbatti cannot be held to be insecticides ..... assessing authority treated the mosquito repellent, as unclassified item and rejected the contention of the dealer that it is covered by the entry 'pesticides and insecticides'. he concluded that 'kachhuwa chap agarbatti' is used as a mosquito repellent and it does not kill mosquito. the assistant commissioner (judicial), the .....

Medicamen Biotech Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2008SC1939; (2008)2CALLT76(SC); JT2008(4)SC45; 2008(3)SCALE563; (2008)7SCC196; 2008AIRSCW2201; AIR2008SC1939; 2008(7)SCC196; (2008)3SCC(Cri)20; 2008(2)AICLR540; JT2008(4)SC45; 2008(2)LH(SC)1492

..... ) is complied with by the person concerned he cannot avail of his right under sub-section (4).8. in unique farmaids's case (supra) which was a case under the insecticides act which has provisions analogous to section 25(4) of the act, the court found that the accused had indeed made a request to the inspector for sending the sample for re-testing within ..... , that the respondents in these appeals have 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 insecticides analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do .....

Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited Vs. United Phosphorus Limited and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515

..... word or expression 'patent' and had drawn the attention of this court to section 9(3) and section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968. the counsel would further maintain that in the light of the clear provisions specified under section 64 of the act, this o.p. is maintainable only before this court and this court ..... by the patentee-respondent no. 1 was already applied for manufacturing by the other company in india before central insecticide board, ministry of agriculture to obtain necessary registration under section 9(4) of the insecticides act. the said formulation was applied by the third party even prior to the date of patent application made by ..... transferred to the appellate board. the learned counsel also had taken this court through the language of section 64, section 117c, section 117d, section 117g, section 116 of the act and had explained the scope and ambit of the act and also would maintain that the intellectual property appellate board at chennai alone would have jurisdiction at .....

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 .....

Mehta Krishi Kendra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj472; 2002(1)WLN264

..... carries weight. the punjab and haryana high court in the case of tarsem singh (supra) held that in every enactment, for example insecticides act, 1968, prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 and drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 there is a provision to send the sample for re-testing to the central laboratory and since in the order of 1985 there ..... 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c)(iii) of the fertiliser (control) order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the order of 1985) punishable under section 3/7 of the essential commodities act be quashed and simultaneously the complaint filed by the fertiliser inspector be also quashed. 4. it arises in the following circumstances:- , i) rajmal mehta, assistant ..... in so many cases has held that when a law is declared to the invalid, it should be declared prospectively and not retrospectively. since in the present case section 19 was declared violative of article 19 of the constitution of india on 16.9.96 and sample was taken on 9.7.98, therefore, this judgment .....