Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 6 other committees Page 21 of about 243,469 results (0.450 seconds)

Northern Minerals Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2000CriLJ4278

..... as follows :- 'under the circumstances, we adduce the evidence and request you to kindly arrange to get the sample retested from the central insecticides testing laboratory as per provisions of section 24(3) and 24(4) of the insecticides act 1968 and rules made thereunder. kindly inform us the retesting charges so that the same can be remitted to you without any delay.' 3. this ..... judicial magistrate, amritsar, on the basis of the complaint (annexure 4) under sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (herein after referred to as the act) read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). 2. on 7-7-1992, insecticide inspector, jandialai, drew a sample of pesticide dimethoate 30 % (diadhan 30 %) batch .....

Present:- Mr. Arun Chandra Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... 11.09.1991 granted for the purposes of selling, stocking, exhibiting various types of insecticides under the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). shri ashok kumar is the proprietor of the firm m/s. sain khad bhandar, bhadson. the firm had acquired the insecticides from a duly licenced manufacturer i.e. m/s. konkan pesticides. the material ..... was not considered and the report of the state laboratory could not be considered as a final report. the petitioner was also entitled to protection under section 30(3) of the act on the basis of hon'ble supreme court judgment in m/s. kissan beej bhandar, abohar vs. chief agricultural officers, ferozepur and another, 1990 scc ..... is yet to be thrashed out at the first appellate level as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the misbranding of the insecticides and whether the benefit under section 30(3) of the act was to be granted to the petitioner and as to whether the sample drawn was in a sealed packed or not.8. .....

M/S P.B. Pesticides and Another Vs. the State of Punjab and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , fazilka versus m/s p.b.pesticides and others.(annexure p/6) filed for offence under section 3 (k) (i).17, 18, 29 and 33 punishable under section 29 (1) of insecticides act, 1968 read with section 27 (4) of the insecticides rules, 1971. on 9.1.2007, insecticide inspector, fazilka visited the premises of petitioner no.1 and took the sample of piroxifop propinyl 15% wp. the ..... sample was sent to punjab insecticides quality control laboratory, ludhiana and vide report dated 7.2.2007 (annexure .....

M/S Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , maur mandi versus m/s yashpal garg and others (annexure p/1) filed for offence under section 3 (k) (i).17, 18, 29 and 33 punishable under section 29 (1) of insecticides act, 1968 read with section 27 (5) of the insecticides rules, 1971. on 22.12.2006, insecticide inspector, maur mandi visited the premises of m/s yashpal garg, maur mandi, bathinda and took the sample of ..... control laboratory, amritsar (annexure p/2) is dated 24.1.2007 and that of central insecticides laboratory, faridabad (annexure p/5) is dated 10.6.2007. under section 29 (i) of the insecticides act, 1968 the maximum sentence which can be awarded is two years and fine of `50,000/-. the complaint could be presented within a period of three years from the date of .....

Shri.M.K.Dhanuka, and anr. Vs.Government of India Rep. by Dr.Suresh Ch ...

Court : Chennai

..... company, it is not going to affect the prosecution as against the second accused and dismissed the quash petition.12. a reading of section 33 (1) of insecticide act 1968 would disclose that every person, who at the time of commission of offence, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company ..... conform to the indian standard specification in respect of its active ingredients contents. consequently, the complaint was filed under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 and also under rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971. before the punjab and haryana high court, three submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner/ ..... filed the above said complaint under section 27(5) of the insecticides rules 1971 seeking prosecution of the petitioners and other accused for the alleged violation of section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act 1968. as per the complaint, the insecticide inspector, who has been notified under section 20 of the insecticides act 1968, was directed to draw four .....

Kisan Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1996)(86)ELT543TriDel

..... that what they imported is not fungicide. drawing our attention to the insecticides act, 1968, he submits that 'dodine' is specifically included in the schedule to this act as a fungicide. no purity percentage has been laid down. in other words, the impugned goods under insecticide act itself are not qualified by any conditions in regard to purity to be ..... fact alive, even assuming it is a chemical, would not take away the character of 'fungicide' from the goods since cbec itself in the order issued under section 37b in para 6 held that pesticide chemicals and formulations will both be classified under heading 38.08 of ceta, 1985. assuming therefore, as held by the ..... of ascertaining the scope of entry in the tariff schedule it could not be used to determine or settle disputed classification of goods for which the relevant headings and section notes and chapter notes read with relevant judgments, if any, are the guides. in the case of mechanical packing industries pvt. ltd. v. union of india .....

B.P. Misra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1990CriLJ2736

..... in each of the three cases should be quashed because the applicant cannot be termed within the meaning of the qualifying clauses enumerated in section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act).2. sri sakha ram singh, learned counsel for the applicant and sri surendra singh, learned a.g.a. for the state ..... 7 respectively, are guilty of offence.' (underlining by me).it was argued that the word 'distributor' as used in section 29 of the act refers only to the person who is connected with the manufacture of the insecticides and it is not, and should not, be interpreted to include a managing director of the federation who was always ..... above respectively.6. sri sakha ram singh, learned counsel, has drawn the attention of the court to section 29 of the act which reads as under:'29(1) whoever --(a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under -clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) .....

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M.P. Agro Pesticides Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ7

..... construed not in any technical or scientific sense, but they must be understood as used in common parlance and in commercial language.9. the insecticides act, 1968 is intended to regulate activities in connection with insecticides. section 3(a) defines insecticides as :'(e) 'insecticide' means -(i) any substance specified in the schedule; or(ii) such other substances (including fungicides and weedicides) as the central government may, after ..... controverted by the revenue according to which b.h.c. 50% w.d.p. is an insecticide coming under the provisions of the insecticides act, 1968 and is not medicine coming under rule 24(ii)(a), or drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, or the medicine and toilet preparations (excise duties) act, 1955, (no. 16 of 1955). it has to be noticed that the expression 'medicine' or .....

Murli Manohar Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2002CriLJ1295

v.m. jain, j.1. this is a petition under section 482, crpc, for quashing the criminal complaint under sections 3k(i), 9, 17, 18, 21(b), 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act) read with rules 16 and 19 of the insecticides rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and for quashing ..... of all consequent proceedings, arising out of the said complaint.2. it was alleged that m/s madhu sudan industries was a manufacturing industry, manufacturing different types of insecticides ..... state of punjab, 1997(2) recent criminal reports 99, it was held by this court that it was obvious from plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the act that merely being the responsible person was not enough. he should be responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. .....

B.B. Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1995]83CompCas596(P& H)

..... because he happened to be the secretary of the company. in the absence of any material connecting the petitioner with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, it is clear that prosecution against him would be an abuse of the process,of the court. no useful purpose would be served to ..... the secretary of the company and is responsible for this offence. it is a conspicuously vague assertion and consequently it becomes difficult to artract sub-section (1) to section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968.5. learned counsel appearing for the state of haryana in that event, urged that the petitioner is a responsible officer and under sub ..... the proceedings taken thereto.3. notice of the petition had been issued to the state of haryana. needless to say it contested the said petition. section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, deals with the eventualities where offences are committed by companies. the same runs as under :' (1) whenever an offence under this .....