The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by the master licensee of the VIMAL brand challenging a show cause notice issued by the Maharashtra FDA to three brand ambassadors, holding that neither the location of FSSAI in Delhi nor the petitioner’s own base there could confer territorial jurisdiction. The merits were left untouched.
A Bengaluru court fined Tonique for charging a customer for a carry bag that had the store’s branding. The court called the act “unprofessional and unfair,” stating that customers should not be made to pay for unsolicited advertising. Tonique was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the customer.
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging the appointment of Subhransu Sekhar Acharya as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of NSIDC, stating that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters and only non-appointees can challenge the legality of an appointment or extension procedure. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the petition.
The Supreme Court fined an intervention applicant Rs.10,000 for attempting to join a case against Patanjali Ayurved with misleading claims. The applicant alleged a quack doctor’s role in their mother’s death, but the court dismissed the application, warning against manipulating the legal process. Patanjali faced criticism for misleading advertisements and offered an unconditional apology.
