Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 231 (5.97 seconds)
Documents citing Pyarali K. Tejani vs Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange And Others on 31 October, 1973

Chhote Lal And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 25 March, 1987

12. It would thus be seen that so far as there is no judgment of five Judges which takes a different view from the one taken in the earlier case referred above Pyarali Tejani v. Mahadeo in which the five Judge discussed at length the principles which should govern in respect of the punishment to be given in case of food adulteration and devoted the major part of the judgment on the theories of punishment from para 19 to 25 and ultimately confirmed the enhancement of the sentence which was done by the High Court even though the Magistrate sentenced the accused only by fine.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner (Food Safety), Gnctd vs Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 April, 2023

In Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange [(1974) 1 SCC 167 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 87 : AIR 1974 SC 228, a case arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.] this Court held that the word ―food‖ is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in also subsidiaries. Since pan masala, gutka or supari are eaten for taste and nourishment, they are all food within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

In Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange [(1974) 1 SCC 167 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 87 : AIR 1974 SC 228, a case arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.] this Court held that the word ―food‖ is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in also subsidiaries. Since pan masala, gutka or supari are eaten for taste and nourishment, they are all food within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Commissioner (Food Safety) Government ... on 27 September, 2022

In view of the above judgements of the Hon‗ble Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Limited & Anr., v. Union of India & Ors.,the tobacco products, viz., Chewing Tobacco, Pan Masala or any chewing material having tobacco as one of its ingredients (by whatever name called), Gutka and Tooth Powder containing tobacco would have to be construed as food.
Delhi High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dasa Shekar, vs The State Of A.P. on 21 September, 2021

In view of the above judgements of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Limited & Anr., v. Union of India & Ors. The tobacco products, viz., Chewing Tobacco, Pan Masala or any chewing material having tobacco as one of its ingredients (by whatever name called), Gutka and Tooth Powder containing tobacco would have to be construed as food.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 45 - Cited by 3 - R R Rao - Full Document

Selvi J. Jayalalitha vs The Union Of India on 2 December, 2006

In (1974) 1 S.C.C. 167 [Pyarali K. Tejani vs. Mahadeo Ramachandra Dange], which dealt with food adulteration, the Supreme Court held that it is trite law that in food offences, strict liability is the rule not merely under the Indian Act, but all the world over. Nothing more than actus reus is needed where regulation of private activity in vulnerable areas like public health is intended. The Supreme Court observed as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 175 - Cited by 1 - P Sridevan - Full Document

M/S. H.H. Patel And Co vs The State Of Telangana on 30 November, 2021

The respondent No.6 has also placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Tejani v. M.R.Dange26, R.Krishnamurthy (supra), Krishan Gopal Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi27, Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Limited (supra), Laxmikant v. Union of India28 and the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.P.No.12352 of 2012 and other connected matters. (33) The respondent No.6 has also brought to the notice of this Court that Minutes of the Expert Committee constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare which has recommended a complete ban on gutka containing tobacco/tobacco products/tobacco. It has been stated that large number of people are dying out of cancer and the action taken by the State Government is in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. Therefore, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petitions. 26 (1974) 1 SCC 167 27 (1996) 4 SCC 513 28 (1997) 4 SCC 739 29 (34) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The writ petitions are being disposed of at admission stage with the consent of the parties. (35) The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by Notification No.505/FSS-1/2021, dated 06.01.2021 issued by the respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana in exercise of powers conferred under Section 30 of the FSS Act 2006. The Notification dated 06.01.2021 is reproduced as under:-
Telangana High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next