SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(Bom) 32

H.K.CHAINANI, S.T.DESAI, V.M.TARKUNDE
Sadashiv Tatoba Gatade – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


JUDGMENT - (1) The question referred to the Full Bench is "whether the expression butter within the meaing of rule A. 11.05 in the Rules framed under S, 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act includes butter prepared from curd?" In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act was enacted in 1954 in order to make provision for the prevention of food adulteration. Clause (1) in S. 2 of the Act defines the term "adulterated". This clause contrains sub-clauses (a) to (1) , which lay down the different circumstances in which an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. For instance, under sub-clause (a) an article of food is to be deemed to be adulterated if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser andis to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. Under sub-clause (1), with which we are concerned in this case an article of food is to be deemd to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article fall below the prescribed standard or its constitutents are present in qualities whi










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top