S.O.1688(E) (01 Oct 2007)
Draft Order - Restriction on Use of Fenthion Order, 2007

G.S.R.641(E) (01 Oct 2007)
Cigarettes & Other Tabacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2006 - Enforcement date further extended

S.O.1689(E) (01 Oct 2007)
Draft Order - Withdrawal of Metoxuron Order, 2007

S.O.1687(E) (01 Oct 2007)
Draft Order - Restriction on Use of Diazinon Order, 2007

GSR 633(E) (29 Sep 2007)
Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) (Amendment) Rules, 2007

G.S.R.631(E) (28 Sep 2007)
Amendment in the Insecticides Act, 1968

S.O. 1645 (E) (27 Sep 2007)
Price Notifications

S.O. 1660 (E) (27 Sep 2007)
Price Notifications

S.O. 1662 (E) (27 Sep 2007)
Price Notifications

S.O. 1642 (E) (27 Sep 2007)
Price Notifications

CONSUMER JUDGMENTS

Ram Avtar Patwari and Others vs State of Haryana and Others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Sep 2007]
Posts of Patwar candidates to be deputed to the Patwar Training School and on completion of training, for appointment as Patwaris - Plea that selection beyond the advertised posts was bad in law - High Court held that selection was bad and there was no equity in favour of the selected candidates - Appeal against - Held, details and the records do not appear to have been considered by the High Court - Distinguishing features noted by this Court vis-'-vis those in Satpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995 (3) SLR 787) were also not noticed - It would be appropriate for the High Court to reconsider the matter in the light of decisions - Appeals disposed of.

Union of India and Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar and Others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Sep 2007]
Competition - Vacancies were advertised for the post of 'Gangman' by the Waltair Division of the then South Eastern Railways - High Court directed appellants to appoint the respondents by lowering the cut-off marks against the posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates - Appeal against - Held, general candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility clause including the cut-off marks fixed therefore. Respondents admittedly did not do so - High Court committed a serious error in directing the appellants to lower the cut-off marks - Cut-off mark 20 was fixed for the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates - The same was not meant to be applied to the general category candidates - Even wait-listed candidates have no legal right to be appointed - Appeal allowed.

Rajeev Hitendra Pathan and Others vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Sep 2007]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi holding that State Commission has the power to restore the complaint which was dismissed for default - Held, effect of amendment to the Act in 2003 whereby s. 22(A) was introduced has the effect of conferment of power of restoration on National Commission, but not to the State Commission - In view of divergence of views expressed by coordinate Benches, we refer the matter to a larger Bench - Order accordingly.

Messrs Controls and Switchgear Company Limited, New Delhi vs (1) Messrs Daimlerchrysler India Private Limited, Pune; (2 ) Messrs T and T Motors Limited, New Delhi [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 17 Sep 2007]
Consumer Protection - If one of the most luxurious brand of the car, namely, the Mercedez-Benz, which is represented as the World's finest automobiles built on a simple principal "even the best can get better'', gives trouble within the three months from the date of its purchase, would a consumer be satisfied by such a car?; whether he is entitled to replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price? - Held, if the car is defective, may be, on one or other count but that would not give any satisfaction to the consumer who has spent large amount for its purchase - Non-replacement of the vehicle in these set of circumstances, would tantamount to unfair trade practice - For the second car it would be just and proper to direct the Opposite Parties to remove that defect, if possible - Complaint disposed of.

Union of India vs Shiv Shanker Kesari [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Sep 2007]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ss. 8, 15, 27A and 29 - High Court accepted the prayer for bail on the ground that the recovery was not from the exclusive possession of the accused-respondent and other members of the family are involved in the case - Appeal against - Held, provision itself provides no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions are satisfied, they are; the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail - If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail - Impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside - Appeal allowed.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Deputy Manager, New Delhi vs Ravi Kant Gopalka, Proprietor of Messrs Chhotanagpur Finance Corporation, Hazaribagh (District) [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 13 Sep 2007]
Insurance - Theft - District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1, 65, 000/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 1.1.1998 till its payment, together with a compensation of Rs.1, 000/- and state commission confirmed the order - Revision petition against - Plea that act of taking away of the vehicle by the driver would not amount to theft - Held, this would be a malicious act and the policy covers such peril - Exclusion clauses also nowhere provide that an offence under s. 406 of I.P.C. is excluded - Loss of the car could also be construed to be covered by the general category of malicious acts, a set of grounds used in the policy - Petition dismissed.