Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Pepsico India Holdings Pvt.Ltd vs Food Inspector & Anr on 18 November, 2010
(See: Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector, (2011)1
SCC 176 )
In the light of the above, the proceedings purported to have
been initiated against the petitioner - company is misconceived
and the consequent seizure of the goods of the petitioner is clearly
illegal. The department of the first respondent not having woken
up to the situation even after a clarification was issued by the
Director, Legal Metrology, New Delhi, indicates a callous and
cavalier attitude. Consequent upon the seizure, the entire goods
having lost their shelf life is a loss directly attributable to the
Legal Metrology Department.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Seeds Act, 1966
Section 18 in The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012
Further, it is noticed that the allegation is against a
company. A criminal complaint against an officer of the company
without arraigning the company as an accused is not maintainable.
(See: Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private
Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661)
The complaint would also have to state whether the officer
of the company concerned was either in charge of or was
responsible for the day to day management and conduct of
business of the company. A mere statement that a person is an
officer of the company, against which certain allegations are
made, is insufficient to make the officer liable, in the absence of
19
specific allegations in his role in the management of the company.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1