Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Controller Of Legal Metrology – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner company challenged the legality of prosecution for alleged violations. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
S.MANU, J.
Petitioner company approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 16.8.2012 of the 1st respondent. By the said proceedings the 1st respondent authorised 2nd respondent to file complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koothuparambu against five alleged offenders. Among them Chairman and Managing Director, Chief Area Manager and Senior Plant Manager of the petitioner company were included.
2. Petitioner is a company engaged in refining and sale of petroleum products including bottling and sale of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). According to the petitioner, they don't indulge in sale of pressure regulators to the customers. Regulators are distributed through the dealers to the customers and they remain the property of the petitioner company. On termination of connection, customers are bound to return regulators to the company through the dealers.
3. Second respondent conducted inspection in the trade premises of Sri Muthappan Gas Services, M/s.Benzer Home Appliances, M/s. Brothers Novelty and M/s.Bright Metals situa
Court upheld the legality of prosecution authorization, clarifying that no hearing was required prior to initiating legal action under relevant statutes.
The specific roles and responsibilities of individuals within a company must be clearly established to hold them liable for violations under the SWM rules.
The authority to conduct searches and seizures must be legally conferred; actions taken without such authority are invalid.
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....
Directors of a logistics company cannot be prosecuted under the Legal Metrology Act without the company being made an accused, as they are not involved in manufacturing or labeling.
Point of law : Police Officer cannot submit a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in regard to an offence under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics ActA police officer is not specially trained to i....
Point of law: Cognizance of offence – set aside - there is an embargo on prosecuting the Director of the company for the violation of any of the provisions resulting in commission of offences.
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
