Udham Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Indian Penal Code, 1860 – sections 343, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 – conviction and sentence of the petitioners of the offences under – in challenge – While the Inspector Weight & Measures, Mandi was checking weights and measures in the shop of petitioner,
Issuance of notice – against the applicant for contravening the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules, 2011 – complaint filed without making any effort to collect the evidence against the applicant so as to make out a prima facie case against him – complaint quashed. (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Issuance of process – against the applicant – for violation of Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 6(1), 2(m) of Legal Metrology (Package Commodity) Rules, 2011, punishable under Section 38(1) of the Act of 2009 as a product namely Package of Valve Kit kept for sale, on which M.R.P was
Labeling – incomplete address – the manufacturers failed to give the name of the State on the label of the brand (Red Label Tea) and have only mentioned the Pin Code – the provisions of Rule 10 providing for printing of Postal Address or Postal Index Number shall be deemed to be complete address for
Issuance of summons – for offences under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 – Only the persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Corporation shall be deemed to be guilty of the offences on behalf of the Corporation and shall be liable to be proceeded against
Karnataka Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 – the petitioner was issued the licences for manufacture and repair of auto and taxi meters and also dealer license under Rule 3 – the Controller suspended the petitioner’s licenses for indulging in tampering of the auto and taxi fare meters with an intention to cheat the auto commuters
Legal Metrology – compounding fees not to be paid by Directors not nominated – the petitioner – Maruti Suzuki India Limited, challenges the orders of the Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology and the Controller of Legal Metrology, directing the 12 directors of the petitioner-company and the company to pay the compounding fees – the petitioner
Legal Metrology (General) Act, 2009 read with the 2011 Rules – the petitioner has to approach the appropriate appellate forum in terms of the provisions – not inclined to entertain this petition. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy (Deputy General Manager I.O.C. Ltd. & another vs. State of
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rules), 2011 – compounding of offences in contravention of – although, Schedule XI of the Delhi Legal Metrology (Regulations) Rules, 2011 includes the offence of non-compliance of declaration in respect of pre-packaged commodity by manufacturer or dealer under section 18(1) of the Act. However, in the absence of any provision in
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules – When the label does not contain the customer care number or the telephone number for enabling the customer to prefer such complaints, if any, it is a violation of Rule 6(2). (P.K. Vaidyars Vaidhya Ratna Prabha Vaidyasala Pvt. Ltd. & others vs. The State of Kerala & another.
Tap Here To Talk To Us