Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Raghav Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for similar petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on the alleged misbranding of snapple juice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on the insufficiency of the complaint against directors. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. citations of prior judgments regarding director liability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. respondent's view on complaint validity and process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court's observations on labeling requirements and identification under pfa. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. amendments to rule 32(e) and applicability. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. affirmation of respondent's liability based on company declarations. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 9. dismissing petitions with no merit. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
1. Since the facts and issues are same in the present petitions and are filed against the common impugned order dated 06.06.2016, therefore, both petitions are being disposed of vide this common judgment.
2. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint case bearing No.4/2012 and order dated 06.06.2016 passed by Ld. ACMM, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby l
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
