Standards Of Weights And Measures Enforcement Act 1985 54 Of 1985 Section 28 Power Of Inspector To Require Production Of Weight Or Measure Or Records For Inspection - Judgment Search Results

M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLJ613; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)804; 2011(2)KLT1040; 2011CrLJ3791; 2011(2)KHC582

as an aid for the purpose of prosecution under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. If a vehicle 3516.852 842 67 watts." Section 79 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 cannot be taken as an aid provide for the enforcement of the standards of weights and measures established by or under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985: Preamble: "An Act to provide for the enforcement of the standards of weights and measures established by or Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985: Preamble: "An Act to provide for the enforcement of the standards of weights 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, Sections 14 and 79 of the Standards of Weights and in the case of sale of a vehicle. If so, Section 41 also does not apply. 10. It is true that Weights and Measures Act, 1976 evidently do not apply to power of an engine of a motor vehicle. It is apposite BHP, BHP being British Horse Power. The second respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad, issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to thing, or (e) expresses, in relation to any transaction, industrial production or protection, any quantity or dimension., otherwise than in accordance to be noted that Section 41 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 provides that the offender shall wheel base, etc. and hence the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 is applicable to the case on hand. The to a vehicle, why not it be mentioned in other records, advertisements, letters or other forms of communications? If people were BHP, BHP being British Horse Power. The second respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad, issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to

indus Videotronics and anr. Vs. Digambar M. Badodkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2009

After the complaints were filed under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules with the conditions laid down under the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act and the Rules by not giving particulars conditions under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the rules in that behalf. Reference to Section either manufacture or production to attract the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. According to him these petitioners have of the petitioners4. Under Section 33(1) of the Act of 1985 the provisions of the Standard Act and the Rules made the Supreme Court was considering the words 'manufacturing processes' under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraph 8 Video Pvt. Ltd. giving its address of Bandra, Bombay and authority is given to dealers and library owners to sell, rent No. 578 of 1994 has been selling toys. When the Inspectors of Legal Metrology inspected some shops they found a large Rules of 1977. Under the aforesaid rule every package is required to bear thereon or on a label affixed thereto a from bones by chemical process and. therefore did not involve production but it was only a case of extraction from bones12. complaints were filed under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder, 6(1)(c), (d) and (f) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 punishable under Section 51(1) of the has been selling toys. When the Inspectors of Legal Metrology inspected some shops they found a large number of packages of

Sharad Baburao Latkar Vs. Sharad Wasudeodas Gujar and Another

Court: Mumbai

for the respondents while opposing these appeals, has submitted that Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 is not applicable. He appellant did not raise any point under the Standards of Weights and measures Act, 1976 either before the trial court or be used in terms of the units of weights or measures or numeration as mentioned in the Act and contravention from to the goods and the commodities. The Act protects the interest of the consumers in every aspect of life. It gives that if such transactions/sale deeds are held void under this Act then most of the transactions would frustrate. He also submitted and 8 paise which is contrary to the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Act. 11. The learned Counsel in respect the land which was purchased by Ravindra Raut earlier ie 28.16 sq. m. Gujar purchased on 3.7.1991 from Madhukar, Madhuri and person to whom the export is to be made so requires. (3) Any contract or other agreement in contravention of the 1976. It is useful to reproduce the same. "80. Non-metric weight or measure not to be mentioned in any document, etc. 78 square meters. Thus there is a variance in these measurements, it is only 4 square meters. Moreover, the fact agreed trial court recorded evidence and gave findings. The findings were recorded in favour of Latkar the appellant that the appellant is

Mukul Dalmia and ors. Vs. Kiran Pal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)282; 91(2001)DLT65

dated 17.7.1999 summoning the petitioners under Section 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 in the complaint filed of ACMM, Delhi under Section 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and punishable under Section 39(2) of the Standard of Weight and measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 as well as under Section 420, IPC. under Section 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 39(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (enforcement) Act, 1985 read with Section 420, IPC was passed. Irregularity, if any, be taken without recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Petitioners have also placed on record the subsequent Standards of W & M Act, 1976'. Sd/-M.M. 4. On 28th August, 1999 on the application of complainant summoning order dated 8.2.2000 urging that the same is also illegal and without jurisdiction.2. Brief facts are : that on 14th February, 1998 at sustainable. At the stage of summoning the Court is only required to see whether there is enough material for the purpose summoning the petitioners under Section 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 in the complaint filed by respondent Delhi under Section 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Petitioners have also placed on record the subsequent summoning order dated 8.2.2000 urging that the same investigation of the case and I have also perused the inspection report of Weights and Measures Department and I am of

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Subhash Arjundas Kataria

Court: Supreme Court of India

the offence is compoundable as per Section 73 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 65 of considered “pre-packed commodity” under Rule 2(l) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (in short `the Rules). under the Act, which are being sold by weights or measures or numbers, and which are being sold in a packed its valuation being under Sections 4-A(1) and (2) of the Act. The only complaint that the appellant made is that the 65 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. d) On 18.11.2006, the respondents, vide their letter, replied to of the Central Excise Act with the abatement of 40%. Sections 4-A(1) and (2) of the Central Excise Act require that their letter, replied to the notice dated 06.11.2006. e) On 28.11.2006, the respondents filed Writ Petition being W.P. No. 2982 of 2011. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra of the respondent that in spite of proper explanation, the Inspector/Appellant No. 2 seized the sun glasses for allegedly not declaring retail packages provided that the retail packages are labeled as required under the rules.” 8) Rule 29 of the Rules read also agree with the similar arguments advanced relating to other products mentioned above. 10) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted or the net quantity in terms of standard units of weights, measures or number of the commodity contained in wholesale package: 1976 and Section 65 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. d) On 18.11.2006, the respondents, vide their in the packaged form and the customers can take the inspection of the refrigerator and at least for that purpose the

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Weights and Measures Department and Anoth ...

Court: Delhi

under the Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. in a complaint under Sections 39/63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The petitioner is also seeking quashing breach of Sections 33/39 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 punishable under Sections 51/63 of the said 51.09% in the current financial year as compared to previous financial year. 17. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. that an offence which is punishable under the Legal Metrology Act or Rules made thereunder has been committed by trader, manufacturer, 33/39 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 punishable under Sections 51/63 of the said Act. It was the Zonal Officer (Head Quarter) should ascertain that the violated section/rules of the offence so compounded by the Compounding Authority and embarrassing for the Department but also a wastage of man power and precious official time. It has further been observed that him for compounding the offence at departmental level and the Inspector should thereafter act as per the directions of the court. are filed in the Court without proper investigation and enclosing required documents which are mandatory for the prosecution proceedings against the Case Register on the date of seizure. (v) If total products seized from a single establishment for violation of different sections/rules, to the Magistrates dealing with cases under the Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of Weight and Measures Weight and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no material on record with the respondents to show that the petitioner had deleted Measures Department are reproduced hereunder:- GENERAL GUIDELINES (i) During the inspection, if the LMO comes to the conclusion that an offence

Sony India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2004(94)ECC33; 2004(167)ELT385(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC567; 2004(5)SCALE560; (2004)5SCC751

goods are cleared in packed condition as per requirement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. It was admitted that getting over the payment of higher duty. The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 specifically provides that every the payment of higher duty. The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 specifically provides that every package shall be considered is whether penalty imposed under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB was justified in the circumstances that arise depots; that the stock transfer is not sale of goods, actual sale of goods took place from their depots and when of duty ranging from Rs. 1500/- per set to Rs. 5400/- per set was leviable depending upon the size of screen price on their packages would be attracted and that under Section 4A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 excise duty is the retail sale price either did not include the elements required to be included by the explanation or where the retail the sale of which the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and Rules made therein to declare the packed condition as per requirement of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. It was admitted that it was only stock

itc Ltd. Vs. State Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ637; 2009(243)ELT24(Del)

that in the first place the relevant statute is The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ('1976 Act') and not contravention of the 1976 Act read with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 ('1977 Rules') was in the 1976 Act read with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 ('1977 Rules') was in fact a is The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ('1976 Act') and not the 1985 Act. He submits that the package Section 33 of the Standards Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 ('1985 Act').2. The facts in brief are that an inspection S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeks that this Court should not interfere in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC. 7. The facts are not in in Rule 29 in relation to wholesale packages. Rule 6 requires retail packages to mention inter alia, the net quantity, the Magistrate ('SMM'), Shahdara, Delhi under Section 33 of the Standards Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 ('1985 Act').2. The facts in place the relevant statute is The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ('1976 Act') and not the 1985 Act. He Taxes on the pack.3. On the basis of the above inspection Complaint No. 528 of 2004 was filed in the court

Karnataka Weights and Measures Licence Holders Association Vs. Control ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR2894; 1994(1)KarLJ224

enforcement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1988. The entire Rule petitioner is an Association of licence holders of repairers of weights/measures. The Association is aggrieved by the enforcement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1988. The entire Rule 17 is quoted below:17. of repairers of weights/measures. The Association is aggrieved by the enforcement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Standards in the very Rule. The amount collected cannot exceed the actual expenses that would be incurred by the Inspector for visiting incurred by the authorities.4. It should be noted that the power given under Rule 17(2) is a power to reimburse the Any excess demand will be beyond the power of the Inspector.5. Consequently, it is ordered that:(1) Proper receipts shall be issued Schedule XII.(2) If, at the request of the user of weight or measure verification is done at any premises other than in schedule XII and the user of the weight or measure shall also pay the expenses incurred by the Inspector for exceed the actual expenses that would be incurred by the Inspector for visiting the premises or cost of transporting the equipments

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

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 applicable to the petitioner. is stated that the State had made the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 would not apply to the petitioner, it's outlets, Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 applicable to the petitioner. 2. It is pointed out Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 would not apply to the petitioner, it's outlets, showrooms and prayer clause 'C' and the proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority in the above referred Court i.e. SCC No.515 of 2005 of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 applicable to the petitioner. 2. It concluding that the provision of the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 5. The copy of the judgment dated 10.07.2006 placed on record by from Mr.Joshi is marked as Exhibit "X" for identification.