Search Results for "vanaspati"

Trending :

Search Results for "vanaspati"

5 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Appeals: Exemption from Market Fee and Rural Development Fee Under 2003 Policy

15 Jul 2024

These appeals challenge the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgments concerning the exemption from Market fee and Rural Development fee sought by t...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal in Stipend Parity Case Between Ayurveda and Allopathy Post-Graduate Students. High Court's Mandamus for Equal Stipend Quashed as Duties Differ Under Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work, Citing Precedent in State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt.

2 Jan 2024

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the State challenging a High Court judgment that allowed a writ petition filed by Ayurveda post-graduate students...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Food Adulteration Case: Remand Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice. High Court's order setting aside conviction and ordering retrial against company without notice violates Section 401(2) CrPC.

1 Jan 2020

The Supreme Court allowed two appeals arising from a High Court order that set aside the conviction of a nominated officer of Hindustan Unilever Limit...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Britannia Industries Ltd. Against Bombay Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Regarding Applicability of APMC Act to Processed Products. Court Holds That Sugar, Edible Oil, and Vanaspati Are 'Agricultural Produce' Under Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, and Market Fees Can Only Be Levied on Transactions Within the Market Area.

24 Jan 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Britannia Industries Ltd. challenging the applicability of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regu...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Share Dispute Case — Allegations of Cheating and Forgery Found Baseless as Shares Were Jointly Held and Not Purchased by Complainant. The Court held that the complaint did not disclose any offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 323, 504, 506, 447, 448 IPC and quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

8 Jan 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The background of the case involves a family dispute...

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)