Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 52 – Misbranding – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but considered the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for a lesser penalty for misbranding, leading to a reduction in the sentence – Appellant no.2’s sentence was converted to a fine, and appellant no.1’s fine was upheld – The appeal was partly allowed.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.K. SARKAR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 3(1)(j) – The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was filed by an interested party with a personal motive – The Supreme Court also held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the board’s decision to procure cardamom from local sources in view of the urgency and the transparency – The Supreme Court directed the State Government to destroy the existing stock of prasadam in an appropriate manner.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD — Appellant Vs. AYYAPPA SPICES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…

Food Safety and Standards Act I P C

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – Sections 3(zz), 59 and 89 – Penal Code, 1860(IPC) – FSSA is a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation on all aspects of food and food safety, and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives an overriding effect to its provisions over any other law, including the IPC, in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food covered by the FSSA

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NATH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Sections 52 and 89 – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16 – Penalty for misbranded food – Punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy – in such a situation, in view of the overriding effect given to the provisions of the FSSA, the violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he will be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with Section 52 thereof.

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

”Eggshell Skull Rule Applied: Supreme Court Holds Hospital Liable for Post-Surgery Complications” Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – Appellant-Jyoti Devi underwent an appendectomy at Suket Hospital, but suffered continuous pain post-surgery – A needle was later found in her abdomen, leading to another surgery for its removal – The case revolves around medical negligence, deficient post-operative care by the hospital, and the determination of just compensation for the claimant-appellant – The claimant-appellant sought enhancement of compensation for the pain, suffering, and financial expenses incurred due to medical negligence – The respondents argued against the presence of the needle being related to the initial surgery and contested the amount of compensation – The Supreme Court restored the District Forum’s award of Rs.5 lakhs compensation, with 9% interest, and Rs.50,000 for litigation costs – The Court applied the ‘eggshell skull’ rule, holding the hospital liable for all consequences of their negligent act, regardless of the claimant’s pre-existing conditions – The Court emphasized the benevolent nature of the Consumer Protection Act and the need for just compensation that is adequate, fair, and equitable – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower commissions’ awards and reinstating the District Forum’s decision for just compensation.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence – The appeal challenges the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to quash an FIR against respondent for alleged bribery, based on a complaint by the appellant – The main issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, which was based on allegations of bribery and corruption against the respondent – The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision legally unsustainable, noting that it failed to consider direct evidence, such as a pendrive, indicating the respondent’s complicity – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the FIR for further legal proceedings.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw