Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2281
ORDERDibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J.1. The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the proceedings in Case No. C. R. 235 of 1996 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur.2. The above case arose out of a written complaint lodged by an Inspector of Legal Metrology, Durgapur subdivision with the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur.3. The complainant's case may be stated as follows. In course of, a surprise visit of LPG bottling plant of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the petitioner No. 1 Company at Durgapur on 22-3-9.6 along with Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Burdwan and Inspector of Legal Metrology, Dusgapur, the petitioner No. 3 who happened to be the acting plant manager of that bottling plant was asked to produce filled LPG cylinders for checking of their net content. The checking was undertaken in presence of the petitioner No. 3 and the complainant verified and checked the cylinders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)123; 2002CriLJ1087
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. This petition is filed by accused 1 to 3 in S.T. No. 3175 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor praying that the proceedings in the above case may be quashed. The above case was taken on file on the basis of a complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Perumbavoor alleging offences punishable under Sections 18, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 56 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, Rule 24 of the Standards of Weights and Measures(Enforcement) Rules, 1992 and Rule 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. On an earlier occasion, the Inspector of LegalMetrology filed a compliant against petitioners 1 and 2 for the same offences on the basis of the very same facts and that was taken on file by the learned Magistrate asC.C.No. 1132 of 1997. In the course of trial of the above case, a petition was filed forwithdrawal of the complaint and the court acquitte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1991Kant79
ORDER1. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for a declaration that S. 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules 1(3), 2(s), 4, 6 and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are void and unenforceable. They nave also sought for certain other incidental reliefs.2. The petitioners claim to be engaged in the business of selling various commodities who have factories in various parts of the country. Various goods are manufactured by them with the intention of selling them throughout India. The grounds upon which the various provisions of the Act and the Rules are challenged are as follows : (i) That S. 39 of the Act being applicable to only inter-State trade and commerce has no application to sales effected by the petitioners which are inter-State transactions. (ii) Rules 6 and 23 are unreasonable restrictions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2002Ker290
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. O. P. No. 13965 of 1995 had been filed by Cochin Refineries Limited, which is a Government company. The other two Original petitions have been filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, (BPC) which also is an enterprise of the Government of India. Notices issued by the Department of Legal Metrology are under challenge. O.P. Nos. 13965 and 15818 of 1995 challenge the directions for calibrating the storage tanks installed by the petitioners.2. O. P.No. 2752 of 2000 has been filed by BPC for a declaration that the flow-meters installed by them at the Loading Gantries, in its Irimbanam Installation, are not required to be calibrated under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules thereunder. The impact of the Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976, Enforcement Act, 1985 and Rules framed thereunder comes to be decided in these set of writ petitions. I may deal with the issue of storage tanks, in the first instance, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(2)KarLJ396
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions call in question the validity of notices issued by the concerned Inspectors of the Department of Weights and Measures, directing production of weighing instrument used by them for verification and stamping under the provisions of the Karnataka Weights and Measures Act, 1958. The challenge primarily rests on the plea that the petitioner-Bank does not make use of the weighing instrument in connection with any trade or commercial transaction so as to attract the provisions of Section 11 of the Mysore (now Karnataka) Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 under which the notices have been issued.2. At the hearing today the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was slightly different. It was conceded that since Karnataka Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 was no longer in operation with the coming into force of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (Central Act 54 of 1985), the validity of the impugned n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Col. P.K. Vasudeva, Member: 1. The complainant purchased a weigh-bridge vide Invoice No. 54 dated 29.3.1996 (Annexure CI) for Rs. 5,05,000/- from respondent. It has further been alleged that in reality weigh-bridge was installed and made operational in August, 1996. Within one month of installation, it started giving trouble. The respondent was informed and it promised to provide service under warranty to repair the load cells, monitor etc. The engineer of the respondent Company inspected and made some adjustments and repairs on three occasions but the weigh-bridge failed to give proper service. One of the service voucher is Annexure C3. The complainant approached the respondent several times for affecting repairs but there has been no response. The main plea of the complainant is that, firstly the respondent does not have a valid licence to sell weigh-bridge under the statutory provisions. Secondly, he has not been able to get the stamping done on the weigh-bridge because this is a st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD545
ORDER1. The petitioner's claim for appointment as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation was negatived by the Corporation on the ground that she is found to be under height and this is the second round of litigation. The facts leading to filing of this case are: for the first time the respondent-Corporation has taken a Policy decision to recruit women as Conductors to the extent of 33% in consonance with the Policy of the Government in all the services. Thereafter, the Regional Manager, Nalgonda sent requisition to all the Employment Exchanges in the Nalgonda Zone to sponsor the eligible candidates both men and women for appointment as Conductors Grade-Ill as per the qualifications specified in the requisition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name under the women category was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Nalgonda and the respondent-Corporation seemed to have sent a call letter dated 10-12-1996 directing her to appear for interview on 25-01-1997. On the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR1
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Criminal Misc. Case No. 306 of 2003 has been filed :(a) To quash the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell), Bhubaneswar in V.G.R. Case No. 17 of 2001 pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar;(b) To quash the order taking cognizance dated 9.12.2002 wherein learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 468/471/420 of the Penal Code.Criminal Misc. Case No. 149 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2003- passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance). Bhubaneswar rejecting the petition filed by the petition under Section 205, of the Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance in Court.Criminal Misc. Case No. 141 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid V.G.R. Case rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order dated 2 1.12.2002 wherein non-bailable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT243; 2009CriLJ1470
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. M/s. TVS Electronics Limited (TVS Electronics, for brevity) and their General Manager filed instant writ petition questioning communications of respondents 4 and 5 (Inspectors of Legal Metrology, Tenali and Vijayawada respectively) informing that petitioners have committed offences under Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 (for brevity, the Act) and Rule 23(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules 1977 (hereafter, Package Rules) punishable under Section 67 and Rule 39(1) of Package Rules. By impugned communication, petitioners were also informed that alleged offence is compoundable under Section 73 of the Act. If petitioners so desire, it was advised; they may pay necessary compounding fee within fifteen (15) days. Petitioners contend that the Act and Package Rules have no application to electronic printers (inkjet/laser/DOT Matrix printers etc) manufactured and marketed by them and that impugned communication...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner, which is a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956, has challenged through the District Sales Manager of the company, the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.') issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.4.2012 in CC No.599/11/WM. 2. The notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads hereunder:- I, Sheetal Chaudhary, MM, Patiala House Courts, do hereby serve notice u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C. upon you M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., B-100, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 through Sh.Gurmeet Singh. It is alleged against you that on 18.08.2010, the inspection was conducted by the complainant at the above place and a packet of tube packed by M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre, Pithanpur, Distt. Dhar (M.P.) PIN-454774 bearing packing date as 6/10, net size 1.467m and customer care No.022-42496400 was found with mutilated MRP. Thereby committed ...
Tag this Judgment!