Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
12 judgments · newest first · showing 1–12
The appellants, manufacturers of the insecticide Trizophos 40% EC, were charged with misbranding after laboratory analysis showed the active ingredient was only 34.70%. Samples were taken on 10 February 2011, sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, and the first analysis report was …
M/s Cheminova India Ltd, a pesticide manufacturer, and its former Managing Director were charged under the Insecticides Act, 1968 for misbranding insecticide products after laboratory tests showed lower active ingredient than labeled. The State of Punjab filed a complaint alleging offences under …
Indofil Industries Ltd. and others were prosecuted under the Insecticides Act for a misbranded insecticide and sought to quash the criminal complaint, contending that the spare sample had been sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) before any proceedings, violating Section 22(6)(ii) and …
The appellants, Mis Shobikaa Impex Pvt. Ltd. and a related entity, submitted a bid for a government tender to supply long‑lasting insecticide nets but failed to produce a Central Insecticide Board (CIB) registration certificate at the time of bid opening. The tender documents, as amended, required …
M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and its directors were prosecuted under the Insecticides Act, 1968 after a seized sample of their product was declared mis‑branded by the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory. The appellants filed a show‑cause notice, indicated their intention to contest the analyst's …
The State of NCT of Delhi prosecuted Rajiv Khurana under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, alleging that the product of his company failed to meet ISI specifications and that he, as Regional Technical Director, was responsible for quality control. The trial court issued summons, but the …
Northern Mineral Ltd., a manufacturer of insecticides, was served with a report from the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory stating that a sample of its product did not meet specifications. The company notified the Insecticide Inspector, within 28 days, of its intention to adduce evidence in …
The dispute concerned the classification of technical grade pesticides (TGP) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Prior to 1996, TGP and insecticides in bulk were placed in tariff heading 38.08. Amendments to Chapter 38 in 1996 and 1997 and a 1997 circular directed that such chemicals be …
The Insecticide Inspector collected samples of a monochrotophos insecticide and, after a quality‑control laboratory report declared them misbranded, issued notices to the shop‑keeper and the manufacturer, Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. The manufacturer requested that the samples be re‑analysed by the …
Sonic Electrochem, the manufacturer of JET‑MAT, challenged the classification of its product as a "mosquito repellent" under Entry 129 of Schedule II Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, arguing that the product is an insecticide and should enjoy the partial exemption provided under Entry 98. …
Dr. Ashok filed a public‑interest petition under Article 32 seeking a ban on 40 insecticides and chemicals deemed hazardous to health. The Union of India set up an expert committee, issued notifications cancelling the registration of certain insecticides and restricting others. Manufacturers …
The State of Punjab prosecuted National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. for allegedly selling an adulterated insecticide, Monocil. An Insecticide Inspector seized two samples, sent one to the Public Analyst who reported the product non‑conforming, and issued a show‑cause notice. The respondent …
