High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

No Prima Facie Case Against Marketing Company and Regional Manager for Sealed Fertilizer Bags; Liability Solely on Manufacturer For Defective Seeds - Punjab and Haryana High Court Quash Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings against M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. and their Regional Manager. The complaint alleged violations under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pertaining to the marketing and manufacturing of substandard fertilizers.

Legal Point:

The legal crux of the judgment focused on the responsibilities and liabilities concerning the marketing and selling of fertilizers under sealed conditions. The court examined whether the marketing company and its Regional Manager could be held liable for the contents of sealed, unadulterated fertilizer bags, leading to a detailed interpretation of Sections 19(a)(c) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and related provisions of the Essential Commodities Act.

Factual Background and Issues:

The case originated from an inspection by the Fertilizer Inspector in Jalalabad, leading to allegations of substandard zinc sulphate fertilizer being sold by M/s R.K. Pesticides. Samples taken from sealed bags were found to slightly deviate from prescribed standards. Subsequent legal proceedings targeted not only the manufacturer but also the marketing chain, including M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. and their Regional Manager, challenging their culpability for the product's alleged substandard quality.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted that the fertilizer bags were sealed at the time of sampling, with no evidence of tampering or improper handling. Citing precedents, the judgment highlighted that without any manipulative actions by the marketers contributing to the substandard quality, their liability does not arise. The judge underscored:

"In cases where the product's non-compliance with standards originates solely from manufacturing defects, liability should justifiably rest with the manufacturer alone."

The court also referenced previous judgments where marketers were not held liable under similar circumstances, reinforcing the principle that unless there is evidence of tampering or involvement in the manufacturing process by the sellers, their criminal liability does not arise.

Decision: The court concluded that continuing the proceedings against M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. and the Regional Manager would constitute an abuse of process, as they were neither the manufacturers nor had they engaged in any wrongful acts affecting the product's standard. Consequently, all charges against them were quashed.

 

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd and Another vs. State of Punjab

Similar News