Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
98 per cent compliant, but still under suspension. The Bombay High Court found no justification for keeping a Pune sweet shop closed only because an appeal against the suspension order was pending and ordered the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation to the shop for the loss suffered during the period of closure.
Holding that FDA’s recalled restrictions on ACILOC drug stocks stood neutralised, the Court directed fresh show-cause notices under Rule 85, Drugs Rules, 1945, before any further action.
Three government canteens, a uniform 98% score, and not a single insect in sight, until a surprise inspection found flies, cockroaches, and a refrigerator “in shambles.” Meanwhile, a private restaurant lost its licence over a banana with black dots.
When a taxpayer told the Bombay High Court he was staring down a fourth round of arguments after the matter was heard thrice without any pronouncement of judgment, the Court didn’t just fix his case, it ordered every ITAT in the country to start following the 90-day rule under Rule 34, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
The Bombay High Court restored a food business licence suspended under the proviso to Section 32(3), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, holding that once fresh inspections conducted pursuant to the Court’s orders demonstrated 95 per cent compliance and graded the establishment as “Compliance/Satisfactory”, continuance of the suspension no longer served the preventive object for which it had originally been imposed.
The Court held that with adequate material like a DNA test and joint acknowledgment of parentage, Section 15, Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 permits correction of the birth certificate to replace the former husband’s name with that of the biological father.