Disposed

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC24 May 2018W.P.(C)/5371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to the Union of India to enforce an ASCI recommendation against Hindustan Unilever Limited's advertisements. The Court observed that the obligation to enforce lies with the Respondent but disposed of the petition without going into merits, directing the Respondent to act with due expedition within five days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Union of India to act in accordance with law and take steps within five days.

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India… — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5371/2018 & C.M. Appl. No. 20893/2018 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PVT LTD ... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv with Mr. Satvik Varma, Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi and Mr. Tanveer S. Oberoi, Advs. versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

¶5

..... Respondents Through Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Deepak Goyal, Adv for UOI/R-1. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Sucheta Roy and Ms. Richa Bhargava, Advs for R-3.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 24.05.2018

¶10

1 The following substantive prayers have been sought in the writ

¶11

petition:

¶12

1. Issue a Writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No. 1 to immediately implement Recommendation dated 28.03.2018 of the Respondent no. 2.and issue immediate directions to all TV channels to immediately stop telecasting the advertisements of HUL's W.P.(C) 5371/2018 Page 1 of 4

¶13

product - Pure Derm Anti Dandruff Shampoo containing the unsubstantiated, exaggerated and misleading claims which have been held to be in violation of the Advertising Code; and

¶14

2. Issue any other writ(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and

¶15

3. Direct the Respondents to bear the cost of the instant litigation;

¶16

2 Notice in this petition was issued on 18.05.2018, when, apart from anything else, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) was arrayed as a party to the present proceedings.

¶17

2.1 Mr. Chandra, learned senior counsel, instructed by Mr. Ajay Bhargava, has entered appearance in the matter on behalf of HUL.

¶18

3 As would be evident upon perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition (which have been extracted above), the petitioner, in effect, seeks enforcement of the recommendation dated 28.03.2018, made by the Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI/respondent No. 2).

¶19

4 Mr. Vikas Mahajan, who, appears for the Union of India/respondent No. 1, says that the aforementioned recommendation was not officially communicated to the said respondent and, therefore, no further steps were taken.

¶20

W.P.(C) 5371/2018

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

5 On the other hand, Mr. Chandra says that there is much to be said about the aforementioned recommendation made by ASCI/respondent No. 2.

¶23

6 Mr. Nayyar, who, appears for the petitioner, in rebuttal, says that Union of India/respondent No. 1 is duty bound to enforce the recommendation made to it by ASCI/respondent No.2. It is the submission of Mr. Nayyar that HUL had, in fact, taken recourse to the Independent Review Process (IRP), which is envisaged under the Complaints Procedure put in place by ASCI/respondent No.2 against the recommendation made by ASCI/respondent No.2. According to Mr. Nayyar, under the Complaints Procedure, once the Independent Review Panel rejects the petition of a party seeking review, such party has no choice but to adhere to the terms of the recommendation. In other words, Mr. Nayyar says that once the IRP stage is crossed, the Union of India/respondent No. 1 is duty bound to enforce the aforementioned recommendation against HUL.

¶24

7 Mr. Nayyar also adds that the petitioner had, in fact, informed Union of India/respondent No. 1 about the recommendation dated 28.03.2018 as far back as on 28.04.2018, with a follow up communication dated 08.05.2018.

¶25

W.P.(C) 5371/2018

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

8 I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. In my view, the obligation, if any, to carry forward the recommendation dated 28.03.2018 made by ASCI/respondent No. 2, is that of Union of India/respondent No. 1. 9 Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Union of India/respondent No. 1 to act in accordance with law. It will be open for Union of India/respondent No. 1 to take whatever steps that it may deem necessary to do the needful in the matter. Needless to say, the Union of India/respondent No. 1 will act with due expedition and will take relevant steps within five days from today. 10 It is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove will impact the merits of the case.

¶28

11 Pending application shall stand closed. 12 Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶29

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶30

MAY 24, 2018/A

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

W.P.(C) 5371/2018

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Busibells Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)Air Cargo

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rikon Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import, & Anr.

Pramod Singh Vs North MCD and Ors.

L & T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Raj Singh & Ors. Vs Lt. Governor & Ors.

Arya College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Contitech India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-6(2), New Delhi & Ors.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Yatin Ghai Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pramod Mittal through Gpa Holder Uday Pratap Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jindal Public School Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ht Media Ltd. and Anr. Vs Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity and Anr.

Parikshit Mahipal Vs the Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.