Cases In Legal Metrology


  1. Lawrence & Mayo(Opt.) LMI Trust Vide CRI.APPLN.NO.2198 Of 2010 carrying on the business of retail trade in, Spectale Frames, Goggles effectively asked the high court of judicature at Bombay criminal appellate jurisdiction for that spectacles, Goggles, sun glasses and spectral frames are out of the purview of the standards of weight and measures act, 1976 and the packaged commodities rules, 1977.

The learned judge was of the consider opinion that sun-glasses and a frame whether it be just a frame or with lens is not a “prepacked”commodity under rule 2(I) of the said Rules.

  1. A Similar Case came to the division bench of Mumbai high court: subash arjandas kataria v. state of Maharashtra in 2006(5) vide Mh.LJ.361, 2006. In which the bench held that sun-glasses cannot be said to be pre-packed commodity and are not covered by rule 2(1) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.
  2. Philips India Ltd. Filed Writ L.R.140 in the madras high court asking that television sets, audio visual equipment and electronic items are not covered under the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 and pc rules, 1977 made there under.

The learned judge of the madras high court considered the prayer that the provisions of the act are not applicable to television sets audio visual equipment’s and electronic items. The learned judge dealt exhaustively with scientific terms in the field of electronics and the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners. that the act and the rules will have no application to packages which are placed only for the convenience of the customer finally ruled in the favor of petitioner  This means that television sets, audio visual equipment’s and electronic items are not covered in the packaged commodities rules either of 1977 or 2011.