<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (11) TMI 427 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299221</link>
    <description>A Special Court may take cognizance on a public servant&#039;s report under the Essential Commodities Act, and the challenge based on Section 12AA(e) failed. Lactogen (infant formula) was treated as &quot;baby food&quot; under the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966 because it remained within the scheduled commodity, and failure to enter stock in the register or note licence particulars in the cash memo book amounted to contravention. Prosecution of the firm itself was not a prerequisite to proceed against persons responsible for its business; two partners were held liable, while the partner with no shown role in the business was not. Reduced sentence was considered appropriate in view of delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:51:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 427 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299221</link>
      <description>A Special Court may take cognizance on a public servant&#039;s report under the Essential Commodities Act, and the challenge based on Section 12AA(e) failed. Lactogen (infant formula) was treated as &quot;baby food&quot; under the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966 because it remained within the scheduled commodity, and failure to enter stock in the register or note licence particulars in the cash memo book amounted to contravention. Prosecution of the firm itself was not a prerequisite to proceed against persons responsible for its business; two partners were held liable, while the partner with no shown role in the business was not. Reduced sentence was considered appropriate in view of delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>