Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 378 (2.56 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998

K. Guruswami & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2000

6. Shri A. S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State, supported the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. It is contended by him that the right to get the sample examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the Court before which the prosecution is launched arises only after the person concerned notifies in writing the Inspector or the Court concerned within 28 days from the receipt of the copy of the report of Government Analyst that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. According to him, in the instant case, admittedly the petitioners received the copy of the report of Government Analyst on 1.6.1995 but in spite of the receipt of the copy of the said report the petitioners did not notify either to the Drugs Inspector or to the Court within 28 days of the receipts of the said report that they intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the said report and, therefore, not only the right of the petitioners to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the Court concerned stood extinguished but the report of the Government Analyst became conclusive evidence under section 25(3) of the Act. For this he placed reliance on a decision in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and others,.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S D Gundewar - Full Document

Ashokkumar Muralilal Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Mah on 11 January, 2017

26. Thus, the averments made in the complaint as referred to above, cannot be described as bald statement. It further appears that such averments have been made in the complaint on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioners original accused Nos. 1 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2017 01:16:34 ::: crwp247.05 -28- and 2 before the complainant during his visit to the premises of the company. Further, the petitioners have not raised this ground in their application Exh.16 and the petitioners sought dismissal of the complaint solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and even in the criminal revision application filed before the Sessions Court, no such ground was raised. Even the petitioners have not made any oral submissions before the Sessions Judge at Beed with reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1940. It thus appears that the petitioners have not disputed their position that they were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Even assuming that the petitioners can raise such legal point at any time, there are specific averments in the complaint about their involvement and therefore, no case is made out for quashing of the proceedings or dismissal of the complaint on this ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Tyagi vs State Of H.P. And Others on 22 April, 2015

In State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and others 1998 (5) SCC 343 it was held that vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is a director of a company, it does not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:02:22 :::HCHP 16 necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable. Conversely, without being a director a person can be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 26 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2022

15. On consideration of the rival submission of the learned Counsels appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondent, the submission of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Drug Controller of Government of India is found acceptable and reasonable in the circumstances of this case as gathered from the records. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1998) 5 SCC 343 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal and others will not help the case of the Petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, A-1/Company is represented by the Directors of the Company/A-2 to A-5. Therefore, they are aware that without obtaining license from the competent Page No.12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.5381 of 2019 authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, they are manufacturing and selling the drugs without license. Therefore each of the directors are responsible cannot be ignored or treated lightly. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Alkem Laboratories Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2018

In the case of State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 343, the Supreme Court has held that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted under the Act by a company arises if, at the material time he was in-charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The learned counsel for the applicants has also argued that Rule-70A of the Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1970, provides that a loan license would be issued in Form 25A. Further, Rules-71(1) and (7) provides for conditions for grant or renewal of a license in Form 25 or 25F. Form 25A categorically enjoins that the name of the technical Page 30 of 35 R/CR.MA/6985/2017 JUDGMENT staff "under the direction and supervision" of which a drug is manufactured should be disclosed. Since, as per the license and Schedule-M, Clause-6 to the Rules, the drug is manufactured under the "direction and supervision" of disclosed "technical staff" to the exclusion of all others, the legislative intent of Section 34 of the Act can only be to make such staff/officers of a company liable thereunder as are named under the license. It is the conditions of license that have the effect of fastening liability. Once the applicant No.1 has entered into a contract manufacturing agreement with the accused No.3 and admittedly the accused No.3 has manufactured the impugned drug in question through a loan license under the care as well as direction and supervision of the technical staff of the accused No.3, there can be no question of invoking vicarious liability against the applicant No.2 on behalf of the applicant No.1 for any alleged breach of the provisions of the Act by the accused No.3 in manufacturing the impugned drug. I have perused the impugned complaint and there is nothing to indicate any overt act on the part of the applicant No.2 to implicate the applicant No.2 in the impugned complaint and, therefore, proceedings against the applicant No.2 are also required to be quashed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Anil Agrawal And Ors vs The State Of Mah on 23 September, 2024

In the case of State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal, AIR 1998 SC 2327, there was a delay in filing a Complaint till the expiry of the shelf life of drugs, hence, it was held that it cannot be treated as a ground to quash the prosecution. However, the case is not only distinguishable on facts but also on law. In that case, manufacturers' right, under sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the 14 CrAn-344-10.odt Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to get the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory had expired four months before the expiry of the shelf life upon their failure to notify intention, in accordance with sub-section (3), to adduce evidence in controversion of report of Government Analyst within the prescribed period of twenty-eight days from the receipt of the copy thereof.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next