Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: package Page 1 of about 389,713 results (0.082 seconds)

Khaitan Electricals Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2008KAR3370; 2009(2)KarLJ64; 2008(3)KCCR1616; 2008(4)AIRKarR373; AIR2008Kar168; 2008AIHC2985(Kar)

..... or the pre-printed information could be grouped together and given in one place. further sub-rule (1) of rule 6 would provide that every package shall bear thereon or on a label securely affixed thereto a definite plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions. therefore, rule 2(m ..... of the same would indicate that the authorities have noticed that the declaration for manufacturing month and year is affixed by a separate sticker on the package held in question. in this regard, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rule 2(m) of the rules provides with regard ..... would indicate that the said rule states that the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or pre-packed should be borne on every package or on a label securely affixed thereto. the said rule has been framed exercising the power available under section 83 of the act. no doubt ..... act is clear that the pre-packed goods should display certain information on the packed material, the said information is required to be furnished on such package. therefore, i am not persuaded to accept the view taken by the learned single judge of the andhra pradesh high court. on the other hand ..... with regard to the details to be indicated, so that the same would provide for consumer protection in respect of packaged commodities while providing for the proper identification on the package. among others it is also stated in the objects that indication of date of manufacture and date of expiry would .....

Pala Singh (Deceased) by Lrs Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1988SC873; JT1987(3)SC133; 1987(2)SCALE93; 1987Supp(1)SCC201; [1987]3SCR624; 1987(2)LC353(SC)

..... punjab amended the rules and the said amended rules have been titled as punjab package deal properties (disposal) rules, 1976. these rules lay down elaborate procedure as to how the lands in excess of the entitlement which have been ..... punjab to consider and decide whether the legal representatives of deceased appellant are entitled to purchase the said excess land under the provisions of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder.16. it is relevant to mention in this connection that the government of ..... 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was no longer in the compensation pool of the central government but it was a package deal property vested in the state of punjab. it has also been rightly held that the chief settlement commissioner is competent under section 24 of ..... patent appeal confirming the order of the learned single judge in the writ petition that since the excess land allotted to the appellant was package deal property the same cannot be sold nor can it be allowed to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the managing officer under the ..... in l.p.a. no. 95 of 1964 dismissing the appeal holding that the land in question having already vested in the government of punjab under package deal, the authority under the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954 had no jurisdiction over lands in question.2. appellant, pala singh, .....

Kashmir Singh and ors. Vs. Panchayat Samiti, Ferozpur and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC2438; JT2004(5)SC334; RLW2004(2)SC290; 2004(4)SCALE596; (2004)6SCC207

..... the land in question does not find mention in the schedule attached to the aforesaid act. this conclusively shows that the property was not a 'package deal property' as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and was not in the ownership of the state government.7. the property belonged to ..... the said order of the revisional authority, respondent filed a writ petition which was accepted. the high court held that the land was not a package deal property which had been transferred by the central government to the state government on payment of price. that the land belonged to the district board ..... the land on lease, the appellant filed an application for allotment of land treating it to be in the ownership of the state being a package deal property. the appellate authority found that the land belonged to the district board and on the abolition of the district board the land was ..... the sale made in favour of the appellant was also set aside.5. we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.6. package deal property is the property which is transferred by the central government to the state government on payment of price. clause (1-a) of section ..... 2 of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976, defines the 'package deal property' as the property which was taken over as surplus evacuee property by the state government. the schedule attached to the .....

Jagtar Singh and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)141PLR583

..... of the rules, such installments could have been recovered from the allottee by way of land revenue. undisputedly, the property in dispute is a package deal property, which was purchased by the state from the custodian in 1961 and the rules framed by the state for disposal of such property were ..... the sales commissioner were correctly set aside.11. so far as the plea that the commissioner has committed an illegality in treating the case under punjab package deals properties act, 1976 when this restricted auction was held on 21.1.76 under the displaced persons (c&r;) rules, 1955 is concerned. ..... it be cancelled for failure to deposit the installments which were liable to recovered as arrears of land revenue under rule 6(6)(xiii) of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) rules, 1976 and under section 21 of the displaced persons (c&r;) act, 1954. i rely on rulings 1994(1) ..... payment of installment. at the most the installment due could have been recovered as a land revenue as per rule 6(6) of the punjab package deal properties rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). it was also held that the allotment of land to the petitioners on the ground ..... commissioner on 28.7.1991 and consequently the conveyance deed was also issued.4. subsequently, puran singh filed a revision under section 10 of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 against the aforesaid sale before the chief sales commissioner, kapurthala alleging that the land was transferred in their favour long .....

Scheduled Castes Co-op. Society Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR2005P& H100; (2005)139PLR665

..... of evacuee property that has been allotted to the respective states by the central government for disposal. this property is now allotted by virtue of the act, known as punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976. there is no need to make an elaborate mention of these rules as suffice it, to say that whenever there is intention of the legislature .....

Doaba Nirmal Mandal (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner Revenu ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)143PLR174

..... never ever challenged by the petitioners. resultantly, the petitioners cannot turn about and say that the property is covered by the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976, and therefore, the learned financial commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to proceed under section 33 of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation ..... . 2) filed a petition under the aforesaid act before the learned commissioner, who in turn held vide order dated october 22, 1980 that the property was not package deal property. but having been acquired as urban evacuee agricultural land, was covered by the provisions of displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954. this finding was ..... accounts)-cum-managing officer, jullundur, 088 social security & welfare (b) relief and rehabilitation (d) on account of urban evacuee agricultural land purchased from government of india in package deal.10. on the other hand the learned senior additional advocate general has argued that the statute i.e. displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1964, has been ..... . learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order under challenge suffers from the inherent jurisdiction. the property in fact is the subject matter under the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 and that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned financial commissioner under the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954 is .....

Rattan Singh Vs. Banta Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1990)98PLR554

..... case of the department and the plaintiff rattan singh had been that plot no. 10 which formed part of the package deal property was allotted to dalel singh and his son rattan singh in portions as stated above. finding that the allotment was in excess, rattan ..... passages did not form part of the package deal property. considering from both angles as above, i find that there is merit in the contention of counsel for the appellant through-out the ..... issued, firstly, in the absence of any order of cancellation of allotment being passed under sub section (1) of section 7 in respect of any package deal property and, secondly, the authorities under the act had no power to issue such notice in respect of encroachment on passages. in other words ..... duly authorised by the tehsildar (sales) or naib-tehsildar (sales), as the case may be. (3) if any person fails to surrender possession of any package deal property on demand made under sub-section (2), the tehsildar (sales) or naib-tehsildar (sales) may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other ..... (sales) or naib tehsildar (sales) may cancel any transfer or terminate any lease or amend the terms or any transfer or lease under which any package deal property is held or occupied by a person: provided that no transfer shall be cancelled, lease terminated or the terms of any transfer or lease .....

Arun Singhvi Vs. State of Assam

Court : Guwahati

..... and has rightly been convicted, is wholly erroneous and perverse. it was for the prosecution to satisfy the court that the articles were in packaged form and were sold in the course of inter-state trade or commerce.for the reasons stated above, i have no hesitation to hold ..... inter-state trade or commerce, sells, destributes, delivers or otherwise transfers, or causes to be sold, distributed, delivered or otherwise transferred any commodity in packaged form which does not conform to the provisions of this act or any rule made thereunder, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five ..... learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. d. goswami, learned public prosecutor. mr. khetri submits that section 39 is applicable only when commodities in packaged form are intended to be sold or distributed in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. there is neither any material nor any allegation that ..... seized goods should be confiscated.2. mr. khetri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such act or rules known as 'package commodities act/rules'. apparently, the learned magistrate committed mistake. from the materials on records it is apparent that petitioner was prosecuted and convicted under ..... the price by himself. the petitioner answered in the affirmative. on the basis of admission, learned magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 39 of the package commodities act/rules (sic) by the order dated 4-5-89 passed in c.r. case no. 280/89 and sentenced him to pay .....

Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1998)118PLR382

..... was not raised before the additional commissioner. even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the commissioner includes the additional commissioner also. section 2(1) of the punjab package deals properties (disposal) act reads as follows :-'commissioner means - the commissioners of a division.'the very definition of commissioner postulates that there can be more than one commissioner ..... this appeal is that the additional commissioner had no power to decide the matter. according to the learned counsel, under the powers under section 15 of the punjab package deals properties (disposal) act, it is only the state government or the commissioner who can interfere with the orders of the chief sales commissioner and that the additional ..... commissioner, ferozepur. the additional commissioner, ferozepur, exercising the powers under section 33 of the displaced persons compensation and rehabilitation act, 1954, read with section 15 of the punjab package deals properties (disposal) act allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the chief sales commissioner. aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed the writ ..... and remanded the matter to the tehsildar (sales) for fresh decision. after remand the tehsildar (sales) found that the land was already allotted to others under the provisions of package deals properties (disposal) act, 1976, and directed the petitioner, his father and brother to have the allotment orders set aside. thereafter, they preferred the appeals before the .....

Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1980P& H112

..... not operate against the petitioners end other vendees from the original transferees in all the cases till they are heard in accordance with the proviso to rule 11 of the package deal rules. the petitioners are directed to appear before the deputy secretary, rehabilitation-cum-settlement commissioner, punjab, jullundur, on l2th of november, 1979, who shall proceed to hear them and ..... and, therefore, the subsequent vendees are not entitled to be heard. 7. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. and keeping in view wording of rule 11 of the package rules, we are of the opinion that subsequent vendees are also entitled be heard before any order of resumption is passed. the department is well aware of the subsequent sale ..... . as regards the hearing of the vendees from the original transferee, mr. sarwan singh, counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to the proviso to rule 11 of the package deal rules. rule 11 is as follows:-- '11. power of revision. the settlement commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before or decided by a subordinate officer ..... . 3. when the sale by rakha in favour of the petitioner and others came to the notice of the rehabilitation department, a reference was made under rule 11 of the package deal roles to the settlement commissioner-cum-deputy secretary, rehabilitation, punjab, for taking action for cancellation of the transfer made in favour of rakha respondent. the said officer heard rakha .....