Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

Indirect Advertisement Under Scrutiny: Delhi High Court Upholds Right to Advertise Non-Tobacco Products Bearing Tobacco Brand Names

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Directorate General of Health Services against two private companies, ruling on the contentious issue of indirect advertisements for tobacco products under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA). The judgment clarifies the legal position on using tobacco brand names for advertising non-tobacco products.

The Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma, decided on the appeals concerning the alleged surrogate advertisements of “DILBAGH Pan Masala” and “VIMAL Elaichi”, which are registered under tobacco classes but are currently marketed as non-tobacco products.

Justice Sharma, in his judgment, remarked, “The use of word ‘or’ after pan masala and before any ‘chewing material’ prima facie signifies that it is used as a disjunctive word” (Para 24). This observation was crucial in determining whether these advertisements fell within the ambit of indirect advertising prohibited under Section 5 of COTPA.

The judgment highlighted the Intricate balance between the right to conduct business and public health concerns. Justice Sharma stated, “The respondent/plaintiff has a fundamental right to carry on business… for the sale and marketing of pan masala sans tobacco so long as it has constitutional sanction” (Para 28). This statement underscores the Court’s approach towards balancing commercial freedoms with health regulations.

The Directorate General of Health Services had challenged the advertisements based on the grounds that they amounted to surrogate advertising for tobacco products. However, the Court found that since the products in question did not contain tobacco, the advertising did not violate the provisions of COTPA.

The decision has significant implications for the advertising industry and companies dealing in products with names similar to tobacco brands. It sets a precedent for understanding the scope of indirect advertisements and surrogate advertising under the current legal framework.

The Court also addressed the issue of jurisdiction and the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code in such matters, reaffirming the Civil Courts’ authority to adjudicate on these issues unless expressly or impliedly barred by any law (Paras 13-14).

Date of Decision: 24 January 2024

Directorate General Of Health Services VS Som Pan Product Pvt. Ltd.

Similar News