The Delhi High Court on August 30th, 2018 suggesting several measures to curb adulteration in eatables, especially fruits and vegetables said that the testing on a vast scale is the only way to find out if adulteration is being done by farmers or retailers and traders.
A Bench of
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar suggested that the Delhi government’s
Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) can carry out the testing exercise by deploying mobile vans, which can go from place to place in the Capital and check agriculture produce coming from other States. Further, the Delhi High Court also suggested the returning of the contaminated food products to the manufacturers or the farmers.
The Bench saying that “something has to be done” to ensure that people do not consume adulterated products as it can lead to “extremely serious health problems” has directed the Delhi government to file an up-to-date status report indicating details of sampling and testing carried out by the
Food SafetyInspectors. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 27, 2018.
11 Benches of the Delhi High Court to Conduct Physical Hearings from 18th to 20th February, 2021 [READ ORDER]
Legal Insiders
Jan 15, 2021
Gautami Chakravarty
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
4 Shares
In a recent order dated 14.01.2021, the Delhi High Court has announced that 11 benches of the High Court shall conduct physical hearings from 18.01.2021. The subject of the order states ‘Extension of Present System of Hearing of Matters before Delhi High Court till 20.02.2021’. The order came in the consequence of less number of covid-19 cases in the NCT of Delhi.The Division of the 11 benches according to the order are as follows- 2 Division Benches3 Single Benches...
Once a prisoner obtains custody parole in a case, he need not obtain permission from every court where he has been convicted or is pending trial : Delhi HC [READ JUDGMENT]
Judiciary
Dec 29, 2020
Gautami Chakravarty
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
17 Shares
The Delhi High Court, in a matter before it recently held that 'Once a prisoner obtains custody parole in a case, he need not obtain permission from every court where he has been convicted or is pending trial.'The petitioner, who was a convict and an undertrial in custody in Tihar Jail in Delhi in case arising from an FIR registered /Ss. 302/120-B/34 IPC and section 27 Arms Act - sought custody parole. Notice in this petition was issued- whereupon status report was filed by the...
Facebook Comments