Search Results for "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act"

19 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 19 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal in Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Dispute — Rule 55A of MP Motor Vehicles Rules Valid. State can charge separate fee for reserved registration numbers under Section 41(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court judgment that had quashed Rule 55A of the Madhya Prad...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Food Adulteration Case: Remand Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice. High Court's order setting aside conviction and ordering retrial against company without notice violates Section 401(2) CrPC.

The Supreme Court allowed two appeals arising from a High Court order that set aside the conviction of a nominated officer of Hindustan Unilever Limit...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting of Drug Manufacturer for Supplying Sub-Standard Cream Due to Reliance on Erroneous Test Report. Appellate Lab Report Under Section 25(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Held Conclusive, Ignoring It Renders Decision Perverse.

The appellant, Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd., supplied Clotrimazole Cream 1% 15 gm tubes to the respondent, Post Graduate Institute of Medica...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Adulterated Milk in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Case — Marginal Deficiency in Milk Solids Non-Fat Not Excusable. The Court held that prescribed standards under the Act must be strictly followed and even marginal deviation constitutes adulteration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Raj Kumar, who was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated mil...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Food Adulteration Case Despite Procedural Lapses. Substantial Compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sufficient When No Prejudice Caused.

The appellant Vijendra was convicted under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated buffalo m...