The Delhi High Court criticized Baba Ramdev for his communal remarks against Hamdard and its product Rooh Afza during a defamation suit. Justice Amit Bansal expressed concern over Ramdev’s statements, which were perceived as hate speech. Hamdard’s lawyer urged immediate action to prevent further divisive comments from Ramdev.
Today, On 26th March, The Supreme Court has ordered all states and union territories to create a system to handle complaints about misleading advertisements. The court stressed that such ads “can cause great harm to society” and must be strictly regulated. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the public should have a way to report ads violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954.
NEW DELHI: Today, 24th Feb, The Supreme Court of India strongly addressed the issue of misleading advertisements in the medical field, particularly those targeting allopathic medicine. The Court is hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against such deceptive ads and has stressed the importance of following Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Dabur filed a lawsuit against Patanjali, co-founded by Baba Ramdev, over claims made in an advertisement for chyawanprash. Dabur alleges that the ad includes misleading statements about the herbs used and product safety. The case is being heard in the Delhi High Court. The dispute highlights the ongoing rivalry between the two major Ayurvedic product brands.
Today(27th August), The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Central government’s notification omitting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prevents misleading advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs. Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta criticized the Ministry of Ayush for removing the rule despite a prior court order to maintain it.
Renowned yoga guru Ramdev’s controversial comments on allopathy medicines, labeling them “poisonous” and attributing millions of deaths to their consumption, have reignited the traditional versus modern medicine debate. This follows a recent Supreme Court case where Ramdev and his company, Patanjali Ayurved, faced contempt proceedings for misleading advertisements about their products.
The Bombay High Court ordered Patanjali to deposit Rs 50 lakh for violating a trademark infringement injunction. The case, initiated by Mangalam Organics, pertains to the sale of camphor products. Patanjali admitted to breaching the order and vowed to comply. The next hearing is scheduled for July 19.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Patanjali Foods, allowing the company to avoid paying a Rs. 62 lakh customs duty by completing their customs clearance just before a tariff hike. The Court annulled the reassessment of customs duty and instructed Patanjali to submit a refund application, ultimately leading to significant savings for the company.
![[BREAKING] Patanjali Case | "Your Public Apology Published Was Illegible, Font Miniscule": SC Slams IMA President Over His 'Damaging' Statements](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/shared-image.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
