Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: standards of weights and measures enforcement act 1985 54 of 1985 section 17 procedure of registration Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.105 seconds)

Karnataka Bank Limited, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

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...

M/S. Sona Paper Boards Limited Vs. M/S. Weigh Masters

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...

The Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1999SC3125; 1999(4)ARBLR502(SC); 1999(3)BLJR2191; JT1999(5)SC422; 1999(4)SCALE516; (1999)9SCC620; [1999]Supp1SCR146

..... section 30 of the market act, as noted earlier, becomes relevant for our consideration. amongst others, the market committee fund has to be utilised under section 30 for the following purposes:(i) the acquisition of a site or site for the market;(ii) the maintenance and improvement of the market;(iii) the provision and maintenance of standard weights ..... procedure or machinery for enforcing these provisions is found in greater detail in the sugarcane act of the bihar legislation. but on a combined operation of both these provisions, it becomes at once clear that the general provisions of the market act ..... relating to weights and measures, for the time being in force, a record of the correct weight of cane purchased at the place of weighment.(2) no cane shall be purchased without being weighed.33. section 40 ..... judge bench of this court in the case of rathi khandsari udyog v. state of uttar pradesh : [1985]2scr966 wherein fazal ali, j., speaking for majority, relying upon the earlier decisions of ..... 24. on the contrary, it dealt with legislation of the union parliament under entry 54 of the union list read with entry 23 of the state list. the scheme of the aforesaid ..... registration of manufacturer of tea and such manufacturer has to submit monthly return under clause 5 in form c. clauses 6 and 7 pertain to organiser of tea auction and broker in tea auction. clause 14 declares that the licence is personal and non-transferable. these persons are to maintain records as per clause 16. clause 17 .....

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy and ors. Vs. Kishore R. Chhabria and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)

..... january 17, 1986, the securities contracts (regulation) (amendment) act, 1985 (40 of 1985) came into force which inserted new section 22a to emphasise free transferability and registration of shares and making provision with respect to the circumstances wherein transfer of shares may be declined. under sub-section ( ..... but lack of very precise particulars in this set of facts cannot lead to the plaint being rejected by applying the strict standard of order 6, rule 4 of the civil procedure code. 135. it is true that there are many formalities expected when one comes to the particulars in the plaint. however, it ..... jurisdiction is impliedly barred. if, however, a right pre-existing in common law is recognised by the statute and a new statutory remedy for its enforcement provided, without expressly excluding the civil courts' jurisdiction, then both the common law and the statutory remedies might become concurrent ..... there has been no continuous market in the stock exchange for the shares to be acquired, such average shall be calculated on the basis of weighted average prices quoted in at least one other stock exchange to be determined on the basis of the daily trading volume of such shares in ..... concerned, the board may call upon the person concerned to take such measures as the board may deem fit in the interest of the securities market and for due compliance with the provisions of the act, rules and regulations.'54. regulation 39 provides that the board may without its right to initiate .....

In the Matter of Manuel theodore D'Souza

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR244; II(2000)DMC292

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Two couples, Indian citizens, professing the Christian faith, applied to this Court for being appointed as guardians under the Guardians & Wards Act. In the course of the proceedings they amended their petition, to seek a prayer that the children be given to them in adoption. The petitioners being Christians are presently only entitled to be appointed as guardians. They do not fall within the definition of 'Hindu' as defined in the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. A question immediately arose,whether a civilised State committed to the Rule of law, governed by a written Constitution and signatory to International Conventions on the Rights of a child, could deny to a section of its own citizens the right to adopt a child and to give that child, a home, a name and nationality. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures equality before law to all citizens. Non-arbitrariness is the hallmark of this Article. On 26th November, 1949 we gave to ourselves, a Bill of Ri...