Delhi HC restrains Patanjali from running 'disparaging' advertisements against Dabur Chyawanprash
A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed interim injunction applications filed by Dabur.
'Application is allowed,' the Judge said.
The Court has now listed the matter for further hearing on July 14.
Dabur submitted two interim injunction applications, highlighting that despite ongoing legal proceedings — initiated with summons issued in December 2024 — Patanjali aired more than Six Thousand times advertisements within a single week that allegedly targeted Dabur's product.
Representing Dabur, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi argued that Patanjali's ads falsely claimed their Chyawanprash was made with over 51 herbs, while only 47 herbs were actually used. He also alleged the presence of mercury in the formulation, raising concerns about its safety for children.
Mr. Sethi further contended that Patanjali had labelled Dabur's 40-herb Chyawanprash as 'ordinary,' implying inferiority and positioning Patanjali's product as the only one adhering to authentic Ayurvedic traditions.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for Patanjali, refuted the allegations, asserting that the product complies with all regulatory standards and is safe for consumption.
Until further proceedings, the Court has barred Patanjali from publishing or broadcasting any such advertisements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Excise policy scam case: What's the fear in supplying list of ‘unrelied documents', Delhi HC asks CBI
'What is the fear' in providing the list of 'unrelied upon documents (URDs)', the Delhi High Court orally asked the CBI on Friday while hearing a petition filed by the central agency against a May 22 trial court order in connection with the excise policy scam case. The trial court had directed that summons to produce documents or summons to individuals must be included in the list of URDs. 'Unrelied' documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evidence by the prosecution. The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue special CBI court order, which had stated that the court will proceed with the arguments on charges 'once the relied-upon digital evidence copy and the list of URDs are supplied to the accused individuals'. The trial court had reasoned that 'as the CBI must provide copies of relied-upon digital data currently with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), this court cannot yet hear arguments on charge, given that all relied-upon documents must be available to the accused before charges'. It had directed that 'all notices under Section 91/160 CrPC and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/documents received by CBI concerning those notices/written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial'. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers police officers to summon individuals to assist in the probe. Directing that the list of URDs should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, the trial court had directed that the investigating officer (IO) 'shall file an affidavit confirming that no other such notice/communication/document is omitted from the relied-upon documents or the URD'. Opposing the direction to the IO, the CBI, while arguing before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, also opposed the direction that notices issued to and statements made by the accused under Section 160 of CrPC — before they were considered to be an accused in the case — be considered a part of URDs. The CBI's counsel told HC, 'We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entire data to be given… CrPC sections 91 and 160 are tools of investigation, how can it be given? It is not part of the evidence collected.' 'There cannot be a procedure in the Delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (IO of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrelied communication/notices) everything? It is unheard of… Some people have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as businesses are also accused in the case)… There are privacy concerns… Inter se, conflict of privacy in URDs should not stall the trial,' the counsel added. Further opposing the supply of CrPC Section 160 notices and statements of accused recorded prior to them being made accused, the CBI added, 'Once they have been made accused, that statement is not part of relied upon or unrelied upon documents, because those statements can also trample upon somebody's right to self-incrimination.' Justice Dudeja, however, asked the CBI's counsel, '…Point is, why should it not be given… Disclosure statements of accused persons are not made part of the record… Why did you record the statement of the accused at the first instance if you were not going to rely, or not rely on such statements? You can provide the list (of URDs).' While CBI contended that if included in the list of URDs, 'it will then be seen by everybody else', Justice Dudeja orally responded, 'Show then… what is the fear… What is the prejudice being caused to you in case you hand over the copies of the notices under CrPC Section 160? Why do you not want to share these notices?' The CBI contended, 'It is not about fear, it's about what is relevant and not… (If the trial court's directions are upheld) what will happen is, it will become a practice (of including CrPC Section 160 notices) which does not exist at all… It is a roving inquiry.' A defence advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended before the court, 'The fear is the entire frivolous investigation they have done will come all out in the open. Since past six months, they are not supplying us these documents… thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court.' Another defence advocate, Adit Pujari, added, 'This is a bogey being played (by CBI)… that supply of the list is going to delay arguments on charge…' While an order is awaited, Justice Dudeja indicated that the court is not inclined to stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the CBI's petition come on record. The court also indicated that it is agreeable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial court.
India Today
7 hours ago
- India Today
High Court refuses to cancel Rs 215-crore ED case against Jacqueline Fernandez
The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel a Rs 215-crore money laundering case against actor Jacqueline Fernandez, saying the stage of the proceedings did not warrant such a move. The court emphasised that the trial process must unfold to determine whether the accused committed the case dates back to August 17, 2022, when the ED filed a chargesheet naming Fernandez as an accused in the case linked to conman Sukesh actor allegedly received jewellery worth over Rs 7 crore by Chandrashekhar. He had also allegedly gifted several high-end cars, expensive bags, clothes, shoes and costly watches to the actor and her family members. In its order, the High Court reiterated that it was only through a full trial that the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had committed the alleged offence. "At the stage of framing of charges, probative value of the material cannot be gone into and the material brought by the prosecution has to be accepted," the court observed. It added that "Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial."Fernandez had sought to cancel the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed by the ED against her. However, the court deemed her plea premature, especially when arguments on charges were still pending before the trial court and charges were yet to be court ruled her application to cancel the complaint, effectively asking the judiciary to conduct a "pre-trial" based solely on material on record, which it declined to do."The petitioner's case itself relies upon the statements of witnesses, and if these statements are complete, watertight, non-porous, not capable of eliciting further evidence, are clearly not conclusions that the court can reach in these proceedings," it High Court also noted that Fernandez's contentions - that she was conned, misled or hoodwinked - were subjective and remained unestablished. 'All aspects pleaded by her are subjective issues which require to be established through trial," the court noted, adding that, "conclusivity can only precipitate during the trial which is the filtration mechanism offered by the criminal justice process."While the court clarified that it was not passing any conclusive observations on the allegations, it stated that certain issues raised by the ED concerning Fernandez's conduct informed its decision not to cancel the the points raised by the ED were:A 2020 news article, shared with Fernandez by her makeup artist Shaan Muttathil, concerning a Look-Out Notice against actor Leena Maria Paul, who was linked to impersonation and extortion in a bank fraud case. The ED argued that this should have alerted Fernandez to the criminal background of ED claimed Fernandez failed to verify claims made by Chandrasekhar while searching about him also submitted that Fernandez admitted to deleting data from her mobile phone after learning of Chandrasekhar's agency alleged that she initially concealed details of her financial transactions with Chandrasekhar and only disclosed them when confronted with the court made no determination on the truth of these allegations, it concluded that these circumstances do not justify the cancellation of the case at this case will now proceed in the trial court where arguments on the framing of charges are ongoing.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Delhi
News18
12 hours ago
- News18
False Allegations Under POSH Act Dangerous, Will Compromise System: Justice N Kotiswar Singh
The Supreme Court judge said sexual harassment is the result of misogynistic, patriarchal, feudalistic, and male chauvinistic ideals Supreme Court's Justice N Kotiswar Singh has highlighted the misuse of provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act and said that making false allegations under the law is equally dangerous. Speaking at the launch of the Portal for Complaints of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace of the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court judge reflected on allegations that the POSH Act may be misused. 'There is a possibility, and it has happened. Our past experience shows that when the Dowry Prohibition Act was introduced. In the 80s, when we were students, we heard every day in the newspapers, these bride-burning cases, which prompted the legislature to enact this Dowry Prohibition Act. We see false allegations being made. The same is with domestic violence also; this is something that we have to be careful…" he said. Referring to the POSH Act itself, Justice Singh said that it is not a transactional Act but a multilayered one, and members of the internal complaints committees must genuinely believe in the efficacy of the system. On the step taken by the Delhi High Court to launch the portal, Justice Singh said it is indeed a very important step for the pure purpose that it enhances confidentiality and confidence among people, apart from transparency. 'A workplace should be a place for opportunity and accomplishment and creativity. Not a place generating fear and anxiety. A workplace must provide for respect and dignity of individuals and equal opportunity for all. Any such act that negates a conducive atmosphere for work has to be forbidden… As far as women are concerned, there is nothing more grievous than sexual harassment. It demeans women, acts as a barrier to creativity, slows down their efficacy, causing immense mental and physical trauma, which is completely antithetical to the principles of equality, liberty and justice that form the core principles of our Constitution. Therefore, this menace has to be taken head-on…" he added. Justice Singh said that sexual harassment is not an act perpetrated by one individual on another. In fact, he said, it is the result of misogynistic, patriarchal, feudalistic, and male chauvinistic ideals, which still prevail in the minds of many who consider the role of women to be confined only to the domestic sphere. On the large number of women joining and becoming valuable partners of the national building exercise, contributing in all walks of life, Justice Singh referred to the judiciary and said, 'We see that now the number of lady recruits in the judiciary is more than men. The average perhaps ranges from 40 to 70%. In fact, we joke sometimes that the men's species is going to vanish from the Indian judiciary, at least as far as the district judiciary is concerned." The event was also attended by Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and Justice Prathiba M Singh, who is the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee.
