The Delhi High Court in the case The Hershey Company v. Atul Jain Trading as Akshat Online Traders observed while taking strict view of the food safety and public health concerns wherein the court directed investigation into the re-packaging and sale of expired food products in Delhi, including counterfeit chocolates of leading brand Hershey’s.
The bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh in the case observed while going through the material brought on record that the way in which expired products were being reintroduced into markets appeared to be coordinated and systematic.
The court in the case stated that the large quantity of goods especially on e-commerce platforms, which achieve expiry dates, are somehow purchased by unscrupulous persons, the manufacturing and expiry dates are changed and re-introduced into the stream of commerce.
The court in the case considered that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, FSSAI was unable to take urgent action in such cases, and that the matter at hand was beyond the scope of the commercial suit filed by Hershey.
The bench of Justice Singh in the case observed and has directed that the order be placed before Acting Chief Justice Manmohan for being taken up on the judicial side in appropriate manner.
The court directed the Crime Branch, Delhi Police to carry out a detailed investigation and file status report.
Before the court, the issue raised was that the Hershey filed for an injunction against the defendant, before Diwali, from selling expired chocolates by re-packing the same.
It was also alleged that the defendant had knowledge and access to Hershey’s marks and packaging, and was misrepresenting expired and counterfeit chocolates as Hershey’s.
The court appointed Local Commissioners, LCs for seizure of the expired products in October 2023 and two inspectors from FSSAI were to accompany the LCs to inspect and test the defendant’s products.
The court after perusing the LC reports noted that the suit only related to Hershey’s products, but the scale of operations of the defendant was bigger and despite the FSSAI being aware of the same, no complaint had been lodged till date.
The court in the case observed that the date of inspection by LCs and sealing of the defendant’s premises, the defendant had been able to move the non-Hershey stock to another premises from where the business was being continued.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case ordered for the detailed investigation in the matter.
The counsel, Advocates Urfee Roomi, Janaki Arun, Anuja Chaudhury, Jaskaran Singh, and Ayush Dixit appeared for Hershey.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao with Advocates Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vausdeva, Sarthak Chiller, Rohit Lochav, Anshi Gupta, and Yamini Mokeerjee for defendant; CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar with Advocates Srish Kumar Mishra, Alexander Mathai Paikaday and Krishnan V.; ASC Anuj Aggarwal and Hetu Arora Sethi with Advocates Arjun Basra and Yash Upadhyay for GNCTD represented respondents.
