Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Darshan Kxjmar on 16 January, 1979

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Anil Kumar And Anr. on 9 August, 1984

It appears that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shri Darshan Kumar and State : 1979(1) F.A.C.124 (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Bench who decided the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raghbir Singh (supra) and therefore the Division Bench passed the orders in that case and this aspect was never considered at all, (9) We would accordingly bold that the present appeal is incompetent and is dismissed as such.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Durga Madhab Behera vs State Of Orissa on 31 October, 1995

So if a vendor sells any such food article without a licence as required under the said rule, then he shall be punished under Clause (ii). An authority grants licence for sale of 'food' as defined in Section 2(v) of the Act and not adulterated food. So if he deals in article of food without a licence and that article of food is found to be adulterated, then he cannot be held guilty and convicted under both the Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) since, as has been observed earlier, licence is granted by the authority for sale of food and not adulterated food. Similar question as in the present case came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Darshan Kumar and State : 1979 (I) FAC 124, Sheo Raj v. State and Ors. : 1991 (I) FAC 220, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jawala Prasad: 1984 (I) FAC 299. In all these cases the Court interpreted Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) and observed that a person cannot be convicted thereunder for sale of very same adulterated food without a licence.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jawala Prashad on 19 January, 1984

(9) Mr. Arora contended that in view of the conviction of the respondent for selling adulterated sweets his conviction for selling sweets without a license shall have to be set aside. Mr. Arora in this respect relied upon a Division Bench authority of this court reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shri Darshan Kumar and State, (1979) I F.A.C. 124. Mr. Justice V.D. Misra (as he then was) in the said case, speaking for the court, held :- ".....If the intention of the Legislature was as contended on behalf of the Corporation, that the offender must also be punished with reference to the same article of food which has been found adulterated etc. and in respect of which there had been a contravention of any provision of the Act or of rules made there under, this could have been achieved simply by deleting the opening phrase completely. Had that been so, a person would have been punished not only for adulteration etc. of a particular article of food, but also for having contravened the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under with reference to the same article. We cannot substitute any other words for the words "am article of food referred to in Sub-clause (i)". It has been suggested that whereas Section 7 in Clause (iii) specifically refers to an article of food being sold under a license without any contravention of the conditions of the license, no distinction has been in Clause (iii). In our opinion it was absolutely unnecessary to make such a distinction. Sub-clause (ii) is a residuary clause. If it did not contain the opening phrase, all the offences would have been covered by this sub-clause. And that was the case before the amendment of 1964. But, as , have already explained the opening phrase takes out the articles of food which have been found adulterated etc. in terms of Sub-clause (1). In these circumstances we will be unjustifiably straining the language of Sub-clause (ii) to say that a vendor can also be punished for contravening the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under where in respect of the same article of food he is being punished for adulteration. We, therefore, are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid ruling of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court."
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1