FOOD ADULTERATION ACT -The complaint was filed under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act read with Rule 44AAA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). The sample of black pepper was collected for analysis purpose by paying its cost as per Section 10(3) of the Act from a Hotel - the black pepper in its form is primary food, the collection of sample of which is prohibited by the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act.---2015 A.P.(12/2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 15

The complaint was filed under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act read with Rule 44AAA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). The sample of black pepper was collected for analysis purpose by paying its cost as per Section 10(3) of the Act, but the remaining stock was not seized.-Public Analyst, who submitted his report on 07.10.2004 opining that the sample contained the mineral oil which is injurious to health, and it was, therefore, adulterated. -In the instant case there is no allegation that the black pepper is used for the sale of an article of food manufactured therefrom without a licence or it is prohibited by the food authority or the food stored is in contravention of any other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. If the black pepper is used in the preparation of food items meant for prospective customers and that food item is prohibited or stored without licence then only the prohibition contained in Section 7 of the Act is applicable. In any event, it is not the case of the respondent that Section 7 of the Act is violated.-the black pepper in its form is primary food, the collection of sample of which is prohibited by the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act. Apart from that, a reading of the provisions of the Act discloses that the Act is intended for prevention of sale of adulterated food, but no offence can be launched against the purchaser, who purchased such article of food.-In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed, and the same is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings -2015 A.P.(12/2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 15

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more