Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Mayur Jaykumar Vora And Others vs Dayanand Vitthalrao Patil And Others on 16 December, 2025 cites

M/S. Raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 26 August, 2008

In M/s. Kaipan Masala Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is held that 60 months had been granted to the existing license holder for renewal of the license; therefore, as the nomination form is also part of the licensing, it is the document that needs to be enclosed for a new application according to point No. 7 of the annexures of the Regulation 2011. So that the petitioner's company had effected such a conversion within the 60-month period. Accordingly, the nomination form should be deemed valid. There is no dispute about the said proposition. However, the petitioners submitted the 15 of 18 (16) 922criwp236.25.odt nomination in 2008. After the enactment of the 2011 Act, the petitioner failed to convert the old license and documents in accordance with the new Act prior to the incident; therefore, in my view, the judgment is not of assistance to the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Consumer Action Group vs Cadbury India Ltd. And Anr. on 12 January, 2000

In Consumer Action Group (supra), a sanction was accorded to prosecute A-1, and no sanction was 16 of 18 (17) 922criwp236.25.odt accorded to A-2 and A-3; therefore, the grant of a sanction was material. However, in the case at hand, the concerned authority has granted sanction for the initiation of proceedings against the concerned persons, and, on perusal of the communication mentioned in the reference clause, it appears that the concerned authority has accorded such sanction. Therefore, the observations made are not helpful for the petitioners in support of their contention. In Shamkumar Tulsilal Warnawal, the question was whether the Laboratory from which the food samples were sent for testing was accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories. Undisputedly, the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, in Uttar Pradesh, was not one of the Laboratories accredited by NABL at the time of the incident; therefore, it cannot be said to be the Laboratory recognised by the Food Authority under Section 43(1) of the FSS Act. The communication filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, dated 20-01-2025, shows that the Referral Food Laboratories, Ghaziabad, in Uttar Pradesh, was granted NABL Accreditation on 15-12-2016, i.e., after the incident and the analysis of the samples. However, in the case at hand, the Pune laboratory report is also adverse to the petitioners, and the Ghaziabad laboratory report is likewise adverse to the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners have not raised this ground in their 17 of 18 (18) 922criwp236.25.odt petition; therefore, in my view, the observations made therein are hardly of any assistance to the petitioners in support of their contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1