Misbranding

In Parakh Foods Ltd.v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 4 SCC 584, it was held as under:

“In the present case, it is true that the appellant has used pictures of vegetables on the label of the product which is refined soyabean oil, which according to the appellant is to depict the purpose for which the oil can be used, viz., preparation of the vegetables depicted thereon. Unless the picture depicted on a label of edible oils and fats exaggerates the quality of the product, it would not fall within the mischief of Rule 37-D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In the present case, the vegetables shown on the label of soyabean oil do not in any way indicate that the quality of soya bean oil is ‘super-refined’, ‘anti-cholestrol’, ‘cholestrol fighter’, ‘soothing to heart’, ‘cholestrol friendly’, ‘saturated fat free’ etc., nor it indicdates the exaggeration towards the quality of the product to come within the mischief of Rule 37-D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.”

In Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P.¸2018 (128) ALR 497, it was held that the provisions of Section 3 (zf) of the Food Safety and Standards Act relating to ‘misbranded food’ would have no application as the article or food contained in the packet has not been offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims. Therefore, there has been no violation of provisions of Regulation 2.3.1 (5) of the Packaging Regulations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Misbranding, Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.