Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARADHNA SOFT DRINKS COMPANY versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ARADHNA SOFT DRINKS COMPANY v. STATE OF HARYANA & Anr - CRM-42454-M-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1020 (21 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRL. MISC. NO. 42454-M OF 2005

DATE OF DECISION: 03.03.2006

ARADHNA SOFT DRINKS COMPANY

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr Rajesh Batra, Advocate for

Mr Dinesh Banth, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

ORDER:

This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos.42454-M, 42456- M, 42458-M, 42464-M, 42466-M, 42468-M, 42470-M, 42472-M, 15042-M of 2005 and 5512-M and 5514-M of 2006.

On 9.8.2005, the following order was passed:- "Reliance is placed on Annexure P-6.

Notice of motion for 16.9.2005.

Put up along with Crl. Misc. No.15042-M of 2005." In Annexure P-6, the following order was passed:- "Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner company being manufacturer of soft drink known as mountain Dew, is in petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure against launching of prosecution by way of complaint (Annexure P-2) for alleged contravention of a provision of notification dated 30.12.2002, which came into force only on 1.10.2003, whereas samples of food articles were taken on 7.8.2003. Learned Counsel further submitted that under the said notification, a bottle was to bear label showing quantity of sugar added. He contended that since the notification was to come into force prospectively w.e.f. 1.10.2003, the complaint appears to be misconceived in as much as it alleged contravention of a provision, which was yet to be enforced.

Notice of motion for 7.7.2005.

Further proceedings to remain stayed till the next date of hearing."

Counsel for the State of Haryana fairly stated that these cases are covered by order passed today in Criminal Misc. No.42460-M of 2005, Aradhna Soft Drinks Company vs. State of Haryana and another.

These petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in same terms.

March 03, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

sanjeev JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.