After Rooh Afza, Now Dabur: Fresh Court Setback For Ramdev's Patanjali
This comes months after the high court censured Ramdev over a video containing disparaging remarks against herbal drink Rooh Afza.
A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna on Thursday allowed two interim injunction applications filed by Dabur against the advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved.
"Application is allowed," the judge said.
In December, Dabur had moved the High Court, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved was running advertisements disparaging its Chyawanprash product. Dabur urged the court to immediately restrain Patanjali from continuing with these advertisements, which they claim harm their reputation and mislead consumers.
Ramdev is quoted as saying in the advertisement: "Jinko Ayurved aur Ved ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanwantari aur Chyawanrishi ke parampara mein 'original' Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge'?"
According to Patanjali, its own product contains 51 herbs in comparison to Dabur's 40 - a claim dismissed by Dabur.
Patanjali's advertisement also allegedly suggests that Chyawanprash sold by other brands contains mercury, and that it is unsafe for children.
Dabur contends that such "false" claims not only harms its business but undermines the trust it has built among consumers over decades.
Patanjali, however, said its advertisement was not meant to target competitors. It said it has neither drawn any direct comparison or labelled its own product as "original" and others as "ordinary, nor named Dabur in its advertisement.
Patanjali also said that its claims in its advertisement are merely promotional in nature.
Last year, the Supreme Court had taken Ramdev to task over disparaging statements against allopathy. It was only after multiple apologies and several personal appearances in the top court, that the contempt of court case filed against Ramdev and Patanjali was closed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
3 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.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Premature grant of bail compromises aim of PMLA: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a Hong Kong-based Indian businessman in a PMLA case and said giving the reprieve prematurely impedes investigation and undermines the objective of anti-money laundering law. Justice Ravinder Dudeja denied the relief to Amrit Pal Singh in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. Singh was the director of Broway Group Ltd, which was the alleged beneficiary of "fraudulent" foreign outward remittances amounting to USD 2,880,210 (approximately Rs 20.75 crore), originating from Indian shell entities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Senior Living Homes in Dalaon May Surprise You Senior Living | Search Ads Undo These transactions were made under the guise of import goods, without any actual corresponding business activity, the ED alleged. " Custodial interrogation may be warranted to ascertain the applicant's role in facilitating or benefiting from the alleged money laundering operation. Premature grant of bail would impede investigation and compromise the statutory objectives of the PMLA," the order read. Live Events The court on July 1 further noted that Singh's conduct, marked by sustained non-cooperation despite issuance of repeated notices, weighed heavily against the grant of pre-arrest protection. "His non-appearance in response to summons and evasion of investigation reflect a lack of bona fides and do not inspire confidence in his willingness to cooperate with the authorities... Notably, there is no denial on the applicant's part regarding the receipt of summons, yet he consistently failed to appear and evaded the process of law on untenable pretexts," the judge added. Criminal proceedings against the accused's company, the court said, were still at an initial stage.
The Print
5 hours ago
- The Print
In junking Jacqueline's plea to quash ED case, Delhi HC points to ‘suspicion pushed under the carpet'
The court was disposing Jacqueline's plea to quash the ED's case against her, in which he has been questioned at least five times by the agency's sleuths. She was granted bail by the lower court in November 2022. The following year, she moved the Delhi High Court to seek closure of the PMLA case against her. The actor had told the court that she had no idea about the alleged racket, nor did she know the source of the money used by Chandrasekhar to buy her expensive gifts. But the court pointed out that this was yet to be verified. Moreover, the court did not refute the allegations of the Enforcement Directorate that Jacqueline chose to 'brush under the carpet' a newspaper article highlighting the criminal status of Chandrasekhar and continued to receive lavish gifts for herself and her family until his arrest. New Delhi: Since her claim of being unaware of the extortion racket run by jailed conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar is yet to be proved, the Delhi High Court dismissed Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez' plea for quashing charges against her. The money laundering investigation stems from a case filed by Aditi Shivinder Singh, wife of the former promoter of Religare and pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy, Shivinder Mohan Singh, in August 2021. Chandrashekhar allegedly duped Aditi Shivinder Singh to the tune of Rs 200 crore, and based on her complaint, the Delhi Police Special Cell had registered a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code—1860 ('IPC') and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000—against unknown suspects on 7 August 2021. The ED had opened an Enforcement Complaint Information Report the following day. 'Whether Petitioner knew that what was received were 'proceeds of crime' is yet again an aspect tethered to establishing petitioner's 'knowledge' regarding criminal antecedents of Sukesh and the credibility of assertion that she was completely persuaded and misled by Pinky Irani to ignore it. The nuance that petitioner's counsel is attempting to draw between knowledge of criminality and knowledge that articles were proceeds of crime may not be disjunctive issues sitting in two separate silos,' Justice Anish Dayal observed in the order. 'Attribution of knowledge for the purposes of PMLA implication may potentially bring in its fold the full range, spectrum and degrees of 'knowing'. For example, whether turning a blind eye to an obvious fact or disturbing news or a critical disclosure of illegality, would amount to 'knowing' or not is a matter that, in this Court's opinion, can be determined post-trial, when the Court has all strands of evidence for appreciation,' he further documented. Also read: Conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar pitches $2 bn investment to Elon Musk for X, from jail 'Ignorance' versus push to 'brush things under the carpet' After recording the ECIR, the agency had recorded statements of Jacqueline on at least five occasions between August 2021 and June 2022 regarding gifts she had received from the syndicates of Chandrasekhar. In her petition before the Delhi High Court, the actor claimed ignorance of the alleged extortion syndicate, citing that she was only listed as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence probed by the Delhi Police. A predicate offence is a criminal case registered by law enforcement agencies that form the basis of a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002. Counter to her claims of ignorance of Sukesh's criminal status, the agency countered that she was alerted about the criminal history through a newspaper article from February 2020 by her makeup artist, Shaan Muttathil. It was Muttathil through whom Sukesh established contact with Jacqueline, with the help of his aide, Pinky Irani, in January 2021. However, according to ED, she chose to ignore the 'robust' suspicion that criminality was involved and continued receiving gifts. 'It could very well be that the prosecution is able to establish in its favour that the petitioner ignored the newspaper article completely, or took Pinky Irani's assertions at face value but retained the lurking suspicion that Sukesh was an offender, or that she chose to push these issues under the carpet, knowingly and consciously, in order to continue to receive the benefit of the gifts that she was receiving. All these are evidently a matter of trial,' the court noted. The agency countered that between February 2021, when the actress was first introduced to Sukesh, including through video calls on WhatsApp, and June of the same year, funds were transferred to her sister's and brother's accounts. During the same time, Sukesh and Jacqueline met in June 2021 when the former was on parole. The gifts included a diamond ring in February 2021 through Irani, which she brought while attempting to convince Jacqueline of her clean record, as well as luxury cars for her family members. Moreover, the agency also countered that Jacqueline never shared the true extent of the gifts and financial benefits she received from Sukesh unless confronted with evidence. 'By any normal standards, as per ED, this would have been enough to alert a person about the criminal antecedents of Sukesh. However, ED submits that the petitioner chose to bury this under the carpet and ignore it, pursuant to what she alleges as aggressive persuasion by Pinky Irani to disabuse her of the opinion. During this time, from February 2021 till July 2021, the petitioner and her family continued to receive articles and gifts from the accused Sukesh,' the judge documented the ED's objection. Additionally, the agency also submitted that even after the newspaper article was pointed out to her, the actor did not bother to verify the authenticity of other tall claims made by Sukesh, such as ownership of 'Kalyan Jewellers' or 'coal mines', or even '50 percent ownership of Chennai's Leela Hotel', which were made to her. The agency also cited her admission that she had deleted data from her mobile phone and asked her associates to do the same, highlighting her misconduct during the investigation. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Jacqueline Fernandez offers prayers at Siddhivinayak Temple with Elon Musk's mother Maye
