Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: standards of weights and measures act 1976 section 67 penalty where no specific penalty is provided Court: mumbai Page 2 of about 20 results (0.192 seconds)

Santanu Jagatbandhu Sinha and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2007Bom206; 2007CriLJ4664

..... is also not according to provisions of section 62 of the second act i.e. standards of weights and measures (enforcement) act 1985. this second act was brought into effect for enforcement of standards of weights and measures established by or under the standards of weights and measures act 1976 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. to enforce the ..... section 33 of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the first act). a process is issued against the accused.7. in criminal application no. 783/2007 ..... lever ltd. had offered for sale products with following description:1) 'double action blue wheel with power shine' net weight when packed 250 gms. + 25 gms. free; andii) 'green detergent cake not according to standard size.it is alleged that both these packings are in breach of rule 5 of packaged commodities rules 1977 read with .....

Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2006Bom336; 2006(6)ALLMR237

..... apex court was considering the provisions of the act and the rules, considering the scheme of the act and the rules the apex court observed as under:the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 (hereinafter called 'the rules'). chapter ii deals with the provisions applicable to packages intended for retail sale. rule 3 ..... now gainfully refer to the provisions of the standards of weights and measures (enforcement) act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the enforcement act and the rules framed thereunder which shall be referred to as the ..... to the petitioner, contending that they have been sold in violation of the provisions of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the rules, which have been framed under the provisions of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the act. we may .....

Subash Arjandas Kataria Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2006Bom293; 2007(2)BomCR945; 2006(44)MhLj361

..... on a routine inspection of globus stores pvt. ltd. several goods which are a commodity in packaged form, as defined under section 2(b) of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 read with the definition of pre-packed goods were seized. the petitioner voluntarily gave consent for compounding the offence. the object of the ..... glasses belonging to the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the rules framed under the provisions of standards of weights and measures act, 1976 (which hereinafter shall be referred to as the act), which are known as the standards of weights and measures (packaged) commodities rules, 1977, which hereinafter are to be referred to, as the rules ..... . there is yet another act known as the standards of weights and measurements (enforcement) act, 1985 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the enforcement act. on 22nd october, 2003 as per the pleadings in .....

Indian Rayon and Industries Limited a Company Incorporated Under the C ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)1668; 2003(2)MhLj464

..... moreswar, patankar marg, piperoad, kurla, mumbai in respect of violation ofprovisions of section 39 of the standards ofweights and measures act, 1976 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the act' for convenience) and rule23 (1) of the standards of weights & measures(packaged commodities) rules, 1977 (hereinafterreferred to as 'rules' for convenience).2. shri t ..... .k. patil filed a complaint in thecourt of metropolitan magistrate room no. 31,vikhroli, mumbai, alleging that the petitioner didnot mention the date of manufacture of 'birlawhite portland cement' though the net weight, ..... has been brought to shop orcommercial institute for sale or for exhibition tosale. if the month and year of manufacture hasbeen printed, the weight has been mentioned,retail price (inclusive of all taxes) has beenmentioned, it would be sufficient compliance ofthe provisions of the act and the .....

Titan Industries Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... mumbai, to indicate that the said petition has been allowed in the terms of prayer clauses 'a' and 'b' after concluding that the provision of the standard of weights and measures act, 1976 and the standards of weights and measures act, 1985 would not apply to the petitioner, it's outlets, showrooms and place of display or sale or storage. 5. the copy of ..... summary criminal case no.515 of 2005 pending in the court of learned chief judicial magistrate, osmanabad. it is stated that the state had made the standard of weights and measures act, 1976 and the standards of weights and measures act, 1985 applicable to the petitioner. 2. it is pointed out that this court by its order dated 06.09.2005 had passed the .....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs. B.G. Constructions

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... has a strong bearing on the issue under consideration. accordingly, the different conditions for "wholesale package" laid down under clause (x) of rule 2 of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodity) rules, 1977 have to be independently considered and not in conjunction as claimed by the revenue. considering the clarification given in the above ..... refer to your letter no. 900 fl 0383 dated 14.8.2003 and to state that the sub clauses under clause (x) of rule 2 of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 relating to the definition of "wholesale package" are to be read independently and not in conjunction." the learned consultant ..... central excise act. they held that the goods in question in the form it was cleared by the respondent was exempt under rule 34(b) of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodity) rules, 1977 from the requirement of declaration of mrp and thereby from the application of section 4a of the act. according to .....

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and issued the process against the applicants for having committed an offence punishable under sections 33/51 of standards of weights and measures (enforcement) act, 1985 read with rules 24 and 25 of the standards of weights and measures (package commodity) rules, 1977. there is no substance in the criminal application and thus the criminal application is liable to ..... , enforcement act and package commodity rules. 5. the learned counsel submits that, the ministry of civil supplies, consumer affairs and public distribution weights and measures by letter dated 8.7.1994 issued a clarification regarding the standards of weight and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 and informed to all india management association that according to the provisions of rules 11 (4), net quantity .....

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court : Mumbai

..... are not found complying with the amended rules and sold or offered for sale after 31/12/2007 will attract penal provisions under section 63 of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976." "4 the state government are accordingly advised to allow to manufacturers/importers/packers and dealers time upto 31/12/2007 for complying ..... search dated 15th june, 2007 the complaint was filed by the authorized officer on 10th of december, 2007 for the offence punishable u/s 51(1) of standards of weights and measurement (enforcement) act. the learned magistrate issued process on 19th of march, 2010. 4. the learned counsel mr. arshad shaikh has submitted that respondent ..... no.2 in the said complaint had alleged that the petitioner had violated rule 6(1a) of the standards of weight and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 and has thereby committed offence punishable u/s 51(1) of standards of weights and measures (enforcement) act, 1985. the amendment in question can be reproduced as under: "r.6 .....

Mumbai Bidi Tambaku Vyapari Sangh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR1127; 2003(4)BomCR300; 2003(2)MhLj147

..... the manufacturer, and what is very important, the price of the package. it is also proposed that commodities commonly used by people should be packed in rationalised standard quantities by weight, measure or number, so as to facilitate the purchase and comparison of price by the people. further, indication of date of manufacture and date of expiry ..... plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner of -- (i) the identity of the commodity in the package;(ii) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight, ormeasure, of the commodity in the package; (iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accuratenumber of the commodity contained in the package; ( ..... be rejected. as a matter of fact the whole object and purpose of the act has been to enact a law for the purpose of setting out standards in weights and measures and to make provisions for the protection of consumers. one of the most important rights of the consumer today, amongst other rights, is to .....

Cadbury India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Controller of Legal Metrology and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(3)BomCR373; 2006(44)MhLj415

..... , thane filed affidavit in reply. in the affidavit in reply also some contention was raised by the respondents stating therein that there was violation of section 33 standard of weights and measures (enforcement) act, 1985 read with the rule 24 of the said rules. it was contended in the affidavit in reply that the only packages ..... from the various products manufactured by the petitioners and weighed the same. except for one product, all the products were found to weigh slightly more than the declared weight. however, one product namely cadbury dairy milk chocolate which ought to have weighed 13 gms., weighed slightly less and net deficiency was found to be 0.313 ..... exempted from the coverage of the packaged commodity rules in view of the provisions of rule 34(b) which inter alia exempts packages of weight less than 20 grams when sold by weight from all the provisions of packaged commodity rules. petitioners by their letter dated 22-1-2003 addressed to the respondent no. 2 submitted that .....