Back
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
T. Stanes and Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Director of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, who is a manufacturer of the insecticides assails order dated 12.6.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Joint Director, Agriculture-cum- Licencing Authority vide which the licencing authority has revoked his insecticides licence. The petitioner also assails order dated 10.8.2023 (Annexure P-16) passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against revocation of his licence has also been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the manufacturer had been storing the insecticides in the premises at Godown No.32-A, K.C. Complex, Sivian Road, Bathinda owned by Sh. Pankaj who is "clearing and forwarding" agent of petitioner-company. It has been submitted that on account of annual budget conference of the petitioner-company at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu w.e.f. 17.4.2023 to 28.4.2023, all the marketing personnel from Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan were stationed at Coimbatore and during the absence of the representative of the petitioner company and without the consent of the petitioner company, the godown owner i.e. the Clearing and Forwarding Agent shifted the pesticid
A licensed dealer of insecticides is protected under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and cannot be penalized without evidence of wrongdoing.
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
The court held that mere possession of banned insecticide without evidence of intent to sell does not constitute an offence under the Insecticides Act, reaffirming strict adherence to statutory proce....
A retailer or marketing firm is not liable for misbranding if the insecticide was sold in sealed packaging and there is no evidence of their knowledge regarding the misbranding.
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
Retailers cannot be held liable under the Insecticides Act for misbranding unless they have knowledge or direct involvement; liability requires specific allegations linking the accused to the offense....
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
