Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE
Mukesh, S/o Hari Butani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through the Inspector, Legal Metrology – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application admitted and finally heard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. complaint alleges packaging label violations under metrology act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. no specific averments of director's responsibility or role. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. section 49 requires proof of director's charge and responsibility. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. dealers must sell compliant packages; company not accused. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. vague allegations fail; magistrate must apply mind before summons. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. quash proceedings lacking prima facie case against director. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
1. Heard.
2. Admit
3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.
4. The application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the proceeding Summary Criminal Case No.1129/2015 filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, for quashing.
5. The criminal complaint is filed against the present applicant alleging that the complainant is the Inspector of Legal Metrology appointed under of the M
Directors' vicarious liability under Legal Metrology Act requires specific complaint averments of being in charge of business; mere directorship insufficient; company must be accused; magistrate must....
The complaint was not maintainable without the company being made a party to the proceedings, and the direction to investigate the matter after receiving the complaint was in violation of Sec. 202 of....
Liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear averments in the complaint regarding the accused's managerial responsibility; mere directorship is insufficient without evidence of control ....
Vicarious liability under Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific complaint averments that director/MD in charge and responsible for company business conduct; mere designation insuffi....
Directors cannot be held liable for a company's criminal acts without specific allegations of their involvement; mere directorship is insufficient for establishing vicarious liability.
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments in the complaint to establish that individuals were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
