A notice that did not say how a brand name misleads has drawn an interim rebuke: the Delhi High Court stops FSSAI from taking precipitate action against Emami over the Healthy And Tasty branding of its edible oils, finding prima facie that the notice gave no reasons.
New Delhi: Emami has obtained interim protection from the Delhi High Court against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which has been restrained from taking any precipitate action over the branding and advertising of the “Healthy & Tasty” edible oils. The Court observed prima facie that the FSSAI notice did not say how the use of the mark was misleading [Emami Agrotech v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India].
The interim order was passed by Justice Amit Mahajan on Thursday, October 15, and the matter will be heard next in February. The Court has not decided whether the mark is misleading. The case number and the date of FSSAI’s response are not available.
What the Court found, and what it left open
On a prima facie basis, the Court found that the notice gave no reasons for how the use of “Healthy & Tasty” was misleading, and restrained FSSAI accordingly. From the account of the order, it is not clear whether the restraint extends to the July 17 letter or to the proceedings begun by the states.
Emami argued that the directions were arbitrary and unlawful, issued without an independent assessment of its products, without considering its reply and without a hearing. It said that the July 17 letter led several state and Union Territory authorities to start proceedings against it, in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. FSSAI’s submissions are not recorded in the available account of the hearing.
From a June notice to a July letter
FSSAI issued a show-cause notice on June 5, 2026 on the labels and advertisements for products sold under the “Emami Healthy & Tasty” brand, including sunflower oil and kachchi ghani (cold-pressed) mustard oil, saying that they could mislead consumers and breach food advertising and labelling rules.
On June 14, it publicly announced notices to eight food companies, including Emami Healthy & Tasty, whose trade name it said was likely to mislead consumers and appeared to contravene applicable regulations. The others named were Health Aid, Troovy, The Healthy Factory, Healthy Master, Healthy Choice, Plan B and Neuherbs.
Emami filed its reply on June 23 and says that no decision on it was communicated before FSSAI’s next step: a letter dated July 17, directing food safety commissioners across states and Union Territories to take enforcement action against listed food business operators, including Emami. The company challenged both the notice and the letter.
The wider point
The interim order underlines that a regulator acting against a brand name or an advertisement must give reasons for treating it as misleading and hear the business first.
It does not decide how far the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 allows FSSAI to police brand names, as distinct from express claims on labels, an issue that will be examined when the matter returns in February.
Case Title: Emami Agrotech v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (case number not available)
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, briefed by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. (partners Smarika Singh and Saifur Rahman Faridi, senior associate Jasneet Jolly, associate Ridhima Bhardwaj), with Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi and Ritwik Sharma, for Emami