Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 18B in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
M/S. Zim Laboratories Ltd. & Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 February, 1999
14) High Court of Bombay in M/S Zim Laboratories, Bombay and
others v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 Cri.L.J 2903, in somewhat
similar circumstances quashed the order of taking cognizance and set
aside the complaint.
The Insecticides Act, 1968
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
While doing so, the Court relied upon following
8 CRMC No.614/2016
observations of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi
v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970:
State Of Haryana vs Unique Farmaid (P.) Ltd. And Ors on 7 October, 1999
In State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., (1999) 8 SCC
190, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case under the provisions
of Insecticides Act, which are analogous to the provisions contained in
Section 25(4) of the Act, has observed as under:-
M/S. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr vs Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector on 13 March, 2008
18. Relying upon the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court in the
case of Medicamen Biotech Limited and another v. Rubina Bose
Drug Inspector, (2008) 7 SCC 196 quashed the proceedings on the
ground that the accused in the said case had been deprived of valuable
right under Section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
Shiv Narain Bansal And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 4 July, 1995
16) Again, in Shiv Narain Bansal and another v. State of Haryana
and another, 1996 Cri. L. J. 338, a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana
9 CRMC No.614/2016
High Court, while dealing with a similar situation, made the following
observations:
1