Disposed

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. the Deputy Director Fruit and Vegetable Preservation and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2009WP/47/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging directions to halt manufacturing and obtain new licenses for changed names and locations. The Court accepted the petitioner's undertakings regarding new premises and Skippy Jelly Bites. It prescribed a three-month prior notice requirement to the respondent for restarting specific products, triggering a hearing to determine licensure necessity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to give three months prior notice before manufacturing 'Skippy Jelly Bite' to allow respondent to determine necessity of license.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director Fruit and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.47 OF 1999

¶4

Hindustan Lever Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. The Deputy Director Fruit & Vegetable Preservation Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. V.R.Dhond i/b.Cr.Baylay & Crawford for the Petitioners. Mr. H.K.Vardhan with Mr.Kiran Kandpile for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH and R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶7

DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

By this petition the Petitioner challenges two communications, first communication is dated 11^th December, 1998 and the second communication dated 5^th January, 1999.

¶10

¶11

By these communications, firstly Petitioner has been directed not to manufacture any item under a license which is issued in the name of old company till the fresh license in the name of new company is taken. Secondly, the Petitioner has been asked not to take up manufacturing of the items in new location, unless a license is obtained in relation to the new location. Thirdly, the Respondents have directed that the “Skippy Jelly Bites” which the Petitioner was manufacturing at that time should not be manufactured by the Petitioner without obtaining license under The Fruit Products Order, 1955. So far as the first question is concerned, it is clear from the record that there was no new company and old company. The company continues to be the same, there is only change of name and now even the license has been amended and it has been issued under the changed name of the company.

¶12

So far as the second question is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has stated before us that the Petitioner will not start manufacturing of any fruit items in relation to which the Petitioner has been granted the license, without getting a license in relation to the new premises. The statement is accepted. The learned

¶13

¶14

counsel appearing for Petitioner further stated before us that the Petitioner has stopped manufacturing “Skippy Jelly Bites” since 2001 and that in case the Petitioner wants to take up manufacturing Skippy Jelly Bites again, it will not do so unless it gives notice of its intent to start manufacturing Skippy Jelly Bite to Respondent No.1 informing that it intends to commence manufacturing of Skippy Jelly Bites. The statements are accepted. In the light of the above statements Writ Petition is disposed off in the following terms.

¶15

In case the Petitioner wants to commence manufacturing of “Skippy Jelly Bite” it will not do so without giving three months prior notice to Respondent No.1 informing the Respondent No.1 of its intent to commence manufacturing of “Skippy Jelly Bite”. In that event, Respondent No.1 shall after granting an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, decide the question whether “Skippy Jelly Bite” which the Petitioner intends to manufacture is a fruit product within the meaning of Fruit Products Order, 1955 or not. In case the Respondent decides that “Skippy Jelly Bites” is a fruit products within the meaning of the Order and obtaining a license for manufacturing it is necessary, the Petitioner shall commence manufacturing of

¶16

¶17

“Skippy Jelly Bite” only after taking necessary license subject to its rights to challenge the order of Respondent No.1. The Petition is disposed of.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶20

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. the Deputy Director Fruit and Vegetable Preservation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. the Deputy Director Fruit and Vegetable Preservation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Prakash Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Poonam Courier and Transport Pvt.Ltd. Vs Thye Internation Airport Authority of India

Shivram N.Shetty Vs Mhada and Ors.

Aspi E.Tata and Ors. Vs Ward Office 'D' Ward and Ors.

Asanghathit Kamgar Andalon and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh P. Dange Vs Gas Authority of India Ltd.