Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)
Sadashivrao S/O Bhikaji Pachute And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 29 June, 2015
cites
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998
In the case reported as 1998 F.A.J., 269
SUPREME COURT OF INIDA [State of Haryana Vs.
Brij Lal Mittal and Ors.], the Apex Court has
compared the provision of section 34 (1) of Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with the provisions of
::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2015 00:00:37 :::
Cri. W.P. Nos.68, 69/15
10
section 17 (1) of the Act. In view of the similarity,
the Apex Court has observed that vicarious liability
of the Director in manufacturing Company for
being prosecuted under section 27 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act can be inferred, if at the
material time, the Director was incharge of and
was also responsible to the Company for conduct
of the business as per the section 34 (1) of Drugs
and Cosmetics Act. If sub-sections to section 17 of
the Act are taken into consideration, it can be said
that there is some difference between section 17
of the Act and section 34 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. Under section 17 (2) of the Act, the
Company can appoint nominee and in that case,
the Directors will be absolved from the liability in
such cases and there can be prosecution and
conviction of such nominee. The Apex Court held
in view of the facts of the reported case that the
quashing of the criminal proceeding was possible.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
In the case reported as AIR 1983 SUPREME
COURT 67 [Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram
Kishan Rohtagi and ors.], the Apex Court has
::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2015 00:00:37 :::
Cri.
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997
8. The facts of the case reported as 1985
(5) Bom.C.R. 426 (S.C.) : 1997 (2) F.A.C. 107 : 1998
(5) S.C.C. 749 Supreme Court of India [M/s. Pepsi
Foods Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others] were altogether different.
The appellants of this reported case had not
played any role in manufacturing activity of the
beverage which was found to be adulterated. The
appellants had given their brand name to other
Company for bottling the beverage 'Lahar Pepsi'.