Vinothpandian: 2011 (1) SCC 176 : Pepsico india holdings pvt ltd vs food inspector : Mere presence of pesticide residue does not ipso facto render article of food adulterated ( food adulteration )

[9/20, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2011 (1) SCC 176 : Pepsico india holdings pvt ltd vs food inspector : Mere presence of pesticide residue does not ipso facto render article of food adulterated ( food adulteration )
[9/20, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 277 ; Rupak kumar vs state of Bihar : storage of an adulterated article of food other than for sale does not come within the mischief of sec 16 of prevention of food adulteration act
[9/20, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2001 (6) SCC 181 : TT Antony vs state of kerala : There cannot be a second FIR on reciept of every sibsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences
[9/20, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2018 (3) SCC 358 : Mauvin godinho vs state of goa : A court while framing charges under section 227 of CRPC should apply the prima facie standards
[9/21, 12:05] Vinothpandian: 2018 (4) crimes 387 : Asar mohammad vs state of UP : confession of co – accused by itself cannot be a basis to proceed against other accused unless something more is produced to indicate their involvement in the commission of crime
[9/21, 12:05] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 10 : prithipal singh vs state of punjab : With regard to evidence of sole eye witness court can and may act on testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable
[9/21, 12:05] Vinothpandian: 2010 (3) SCC 83 : mandvi coop bank ltd vs nimesh B Thakore : In a cheque dishonour trial proceedings right to give evidence on affidavit as provided to complainant under sec 145 (1) of NI act is not available to accused
[9/21, 12:11] Vinothpandian: 2018 (7) SCC 581 : sheila sebastin vs R jawaharaj : In a forgery case , making of a document is different than causing it to be made , a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same
[9/22, 05:15] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 584 : UC surendranath vs Mamballys bakery : Held wilful disobedience being in nature of criminal liability must be proved to satisfaction of court that disobedience was not mere disobedience but wilful disobedience , disobedience ” not wilful does not warrant invoking order 39 rule 2 – A CPC 1908
[9/22, 05:15] Vinothpandian: 2019 (8) SCC 27 : vishnu kumar tiwari vs state of uttar pradesh , through home secretary : If protest petition fulfills requirements of complaint , magistrate may treat it as complaint under sec 200 CRPC read with sec 202 CRPC
[9/22, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2005 (2) SCC 217 : janki vasdeo bhojwani vs Indusind bank ltd : general principles of company law or civil law would apply for maintaining complaint under sec 138 of NI act
[9/22, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC ( cri ) 166 : krishna janardhan bhat vs dattatraya G Hegde : Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumtion under sec 139 of NI act

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com