Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Indian Food Precedents-2

    Uploaded by

    maryamtiwana1
    11 views2 pages
    The document summarizes several cases related to food labeling and misleading advertisements. In the first case, V.B. Muraleedharan v. Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety & Others, the court held that a food analyst is competent to submit a report about misbranding of food, but a notice is discretionary. It dismissed the writ. The second case involved whether BIS can regulate food labeling, and the court held that BIS has the power to do so and can prohibit labels that may cause confusion. The third case was about directing authorities to control misleading advertisements of soft drinks, and the court said the Food Safety Act and Regulations must be strictly followed.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes several cases related to food labeling and misleading advertisements. In the first case, V.B. Muraleedharan v. Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety & Others, the court held that a food analyst is competent to submit a report about misbranding of food, but a notice is discretionary. It dismissed the writ. The second case involved whether BIS can regulate food labeling, and the court held that BIS has the power to do so and can prohibit labels that may cause confusion. The third case was about directing authorities to control misleading advertisements of soft drinks, and the court said the Food Safety Act and Regulations must be strictly followed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views2 pages

    Indian Food Precedents-2

    Uploaded by

    maryamtiwana1
    The document summarizes several cases related to food labeling and misleading advertisements. In the first case, V.B. Muraleedharan v. Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety & Others, the court held that a food analyst is competent to submit a report about misbranding of food, but a notice is discretionary. It dismissed the writ. The second case involved whether BIS can regulate food labeling, and the court held that BIS has the power to do so and can prohibit labels that may cause confusion. The third case was about directing authorities to control misleading advertisements of soft drinks, and the court said the Food Safety Act and Regulations must be strictly followed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    V.B. Muraleedharan v.

    Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety & Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 710

    Oil products declared by R’s as misbranded with precise allegation that Label on package bears design of
    Coconut, which is False, Misleading and package is deceptive re: contents

    A contended that product is blended edible vegetable oil with 80 % Coconut Oil & 20% RBD Palmolin Oil
    which is clearly written on package, thus, allegations of misleading are misconstrued, that under the Act
    R/forensics/analysis report lacks authority to declare label package for misleading purpose and R had
    misbranded product without notice or affording opportunity

    Issues – 1, power of food analyst to give opinion re: misbranding, 2, whether natural justice principles
    followed, 3, improvement notice mandatory or not

    xhibit-P7 approval, given by the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Adviser (3rd respondent), appellant has
    printed the label on the package, which bears not only the designs of coconut, but also the design of
    palm seeds and it is also written that it is blended vegetable oil

    Held – Food analyst is competent to submit report re: misbranding of food, Notice is discretionary. Writ
    dismissed

    Bureau of Indian Standards v. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1251, ILR (2009) 3
    Del 92, (2008) 155 DLT 588 (DB) - Labelling

    P was using label “Aquafina” for its ‘packaged drinking water’ and was aggrieve by directions to abort
    using “Snowcapped Mountain” picture & “Purity Guaranteed” as label

    Standards are established as per procedure and the Central Government issued a directive to it that use
    of words ‘pure’ ‘crisp’ and ‘refreshing’ should be discontinued by respondent no. 1

    Plea that BIS lacks jurisdiction, thus, actions ultra vires

    Held: certification by BIS is compulsory for the sale of the products under the PFA Rules — BIS is within
    its power to regulate labelling of articles. Further, BIS has fixed IS 14543:2004, therefore, use of 'snow
    Capped mountain’ as picture device can cause confusion in the mind of the purchasing public about the
    source and origin of such water and can be prohibited, but, phrase purity guaranteed cannot be argued
    as misleading etc b/c that simply assures consumers that bottled water is fit for consumption etc

    Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India & Others, (2013) 16 SCC 279, (2014) 6 SCC (Cri)
    851, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 951, AIR 2014 SC 49

    P sought direction to R1 to check & control misleading advert re: soft drinks, particularly advertisements
    targeting children, unwary uneducated & illiterate people

    Labelling governed by Food Safety & Standards (Packaging & Labelling) Regulations, 2011 & Advertising
    of same governed by ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) Code and the 2011 regulations

    Section 23 FSS Act or Rules & Regulation govern this transaction

    Held Food Safety Act & Regulations not effectively implemented in accordance with Art.21 - Right to Life
    etc. Writ disposed of with direction to strictly follow provisions of FSS Act, Rule & Regulations
    Horlicks v. Heinzs, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12975, (2019) 256 DLT 468: (2019) 77 PTC 45

    2018 SCC OnLine Bom 7265

    2019 SCC OnLine Del 10766

    2019 SCC OnLine Del 7580 – Horlicks

    Misleading Advert – 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2966 – Agrotech case

    2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126 – Gillette

    2014 SCC OnLine Cal 19348

    2014 SCC OnLine Cal 18275

    2016 SCC OnLine Cal 8442

    2015 SCC OnLine Mad 13852, (2015) 3 Mad LJ 18

    2015 SCC OnLine Ker 17698, (2015) 155 AIC (Sum 32) 14

    2014 SCC OnLine Ker 8857

    2020 SCC OnLine Mad 26249

    2018 SCC OnLine Ker 8733

    2017 SCC OnLine Ker 40047

    2014 SCC OnLine CESTAT 4561, (2014) 304 ELT 449

    AIR 2016 Pat 160

    Para 29 of 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1028

    (2008) 4 SCC 584 [LNIND 2008 SC 761]

    AIR 2015 Del 31, 2014 (6) ADR 591

    Advert being free commercial speech enjoys a degree of protection – para 64, 65 of 2008 SCC OnLine
    Mad 627

    You might also like