https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298513 The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order remanding the case back to the trial court against the company was unsustainable due to the lack of an opportunity for the company to be heard. The Court confirmed the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for offenses committed before the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, came into effect. It emphasized the need to arraign the company for the prosecution of its officers to be valid. The Court highlighted that the protections under Section 97 of the 2006 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, ensure the continuation of proceedings under the repealed Act. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Nov 2021 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298513 The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order remanding the case back to the trial court against the company was unsustainable due to the lack of an opportunity for the company to be heard. The Court confirmed the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for offenses committed before the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, came into effect. It emphasized the need to arraign the company for the prosecution of its officers to be valid. The Court highlighted that the protections under Section 97 of the 2006 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, ensure the continuation of proceedings under the repealed Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298513