Delhi HC restrains Patanjali from airing 'disparaging' ads against Dabur Chyawanprash
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the interim injunction on Dabur's plea, which alleged "Patanjali Special Chyawanprash" was "disparaging DABUR Chyawanprash specifically" and Chyawanprash in general, by claiming that "no other manufacturer has the knowledge to prepare Chyawanprash" -- constituting generic disparagement.
"In addition, false and misleading statements made in the advertisements (in respect of an ayurvedic drug/medicine), in disparaging comparison with DABUR Chyawanprash," the petition claimed.
Advocates Jawahar Lala and Meghna Kumar appeared for Dabur.
The petition further claimed the advertisement used the prefix "ordinary" with respect to all other Chyawanprash, denoting that they were "inferior."
The advertisement also made "untrue" claims that all other manufacturers had no knowledge of Ayurvedic texts and the formulae used to prepare Chyawanprash, it added.
The court posted the next hearing on July 14.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
2019 rioting case: Delhi HC seeks police response in activist Asif Iqbal Tanha's plea challenging charges against him
The Delhi High Court Monday sought a response from the city police in a plea by student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha challenging the framing of charges against him in a 2019 FIR lodged over violence that allegedly erupted over protests against the Citizenship Amendment Bill at the time. Justice Sanjeev Narula, issuing notice, posted the matter for consideration next on October 13. Two other accused in the case — activist Sharjeel Imam and Jamia student Chandan Kumar — have also challenged the framing of charges against them by a trial court, with their petitions also pending before the Delhi High Court. The high court is due to consider all these pleas on October 13. While framing charges against the accused, the trial court, in an order on May 7, observed, 'Accused Sharjeel Imam was not only an instigator, he was also one of the kingpins of a larger conspiracy to incite violence.' Imam and Tanha were charged under sections related to abetment, criminal conspiracy, being part of an unlawful assembly, and rioting with a deadly weapon of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, among others. According to the chargesheet filed in this case, 41 vehicles, including government vehicles, were damaged and set ablaze by a mob of hundreds in New Friends Colony. It also stated that 10 police officers were injured, including a station house officer (SHO) who sustained grievous injuries. Fourteen people have been discharged in the case, while charges have been framed against nine others.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC to hear on July 30 pleas against Centre's nod to release 'Udaipur Files' film
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday said it would hear on July 30, the pleas challenging the Centre's nod to release the film Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder. The court was also informed that an application has been made by the producers of the film to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for re-certification of the movie, and it is likely to be considered shortly. A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela listed the pleas for hearing on Wednesday after a request for adjournment was made on behalf of one of the petitioners. The two petitions were listed before the high court in pursuance to the Supreme Court's direction to the petitioners to approach the high court against the Centre's decision of giving nod for the film's release. The petitions have been filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohd Javed, who is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. The apex court, on July 25, had said that film-makers' appeal against the high court order staying the film's release was infructuous for they had accepted the July 21 Centre nod for the film's release, subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Udaipur Files': Delhi HC to hear on Wednesday pleas challenging film's release, says ‘no urgency'
Noting that there is no immediate urgency to hear petitions challenging the release of the film Udaipur Files as it does not have a Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certification as yet, the Delhi High Court on Monday posted the pleas for hearing on Wednesday. The release of the film, based on the murder case of tailor Kanhaiya Lal by alleged Islamic fundamentalists in 2022, is under challenge in two petitions before the Delhi High Court – one by Maulana Arshad Madani, principal of the Darul Uloom Deoband, and another by Mohammed Javed, an accused undertrial in the murder case. Last week, the Supreme Court refused to interfere in the matter and sent it back to the high court for consideration. On July 10, the high court had temporarily stayed the film's release while granting those aggrieved by the purported portrayal in the film, vilifying Muslims, to represent the matter before the Central government and seek a review of the CBFC's decision to greenlight the film's release. Taken up before a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Madani's counsel told the court that senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who will be arguing the matter, was unavailable on Monday and sought an adjournment. Meanwhile, Javed, represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, told the court that with the producer's admission that the film is based on the chargesheet in the case and given that Javed is an undertrial, his right to fair trial will be prejudiced. Upon a query from the court on whether the film has been recertified by the CBFC subsequent to the Centre's review of it, the court was informed that while the movie was approved with six cuts and a disclaimer, which has been incorporated by the producers, CBFC certification remains to be issued. Taking note that a film cannot be exhibited till CBFC certification is issued, the court observed, 'as on date no urgency', and acceding to the request for adjournment, posted the matter to Wednesday. Madani, in his petition, pointed out that the movie is 'replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in the very recent past and thus carry every potential to again stoke the same communal sentiments'.
