Nestle India Ltd. v. Union of India

November 26, 2021

Civil Appeal No(s). 14539/2015

Food Safety — Tests required for the product, namely ‘Maggi Noodles’ — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, had directed to send the product for testing to the laboratory at Mysore vide order dt. 15-10-2015 — Necessity or warrant to issue a further direction for sending the samples to Chennai — Learned counsel for the parties, very fairly, agreed that the primary concern is health and the test has to meet the parameters of Food Safety and Standards Act — In course of the debate, a consensus was arrived at that the laboratory at Mysore is absolutely well equipped and of being a referral and notified laboratory, the product should be sent there for testing — Regard being had to the aforesaid concession, it is directed that the samples earlier collected by the Local Commissioner appointed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, shall be sent to the Mysore laboratory for testing — Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — S. 2 — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — S. 20 — Constitution of India, Art. 132 (Paras 4 to 7)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)

Nestle India Ltd. __________ Appellant(s)

Union of India _____________ Respondent(s)

Civil Appeal No(s). 14539/2015, decided on December 16, 2015

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. Issue notice.

2. As Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India has entered appearance along with Ms. Anil Katiyar, learned counsel on behalf of the Union of India, they waive notice.

3. Heard Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for the respondent.

4. The present appeal is directed against the orders dated 9^th and 10^th December, 2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Grievance, as agoniously pyramided by Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel, is that once the Commission has directed to send the product for testing to the laboratory at Mysore vide order dated 15.10.2015, there was no necessity or warrant to issue a further direction as per orders dated 9^th and 10 th December, 2015 for sending the samples to Chennai. It is urged by him that the laboratory at Chennai is not fully equipped to carry out all the tests required for the product, namely ‘Maggi Noodles’.

5. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, resisting the aforesaid submissions, would contend that on consent being given by the appellant, the product has to be sent to Chennai in place of Mumbai.

6. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties, very fairly, agreed that the primary concern is health and the test has to meet the parameters of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In course of the debate, a consensus was arrived at that the laboratory at Mysore is absolutely well equipped and of being a referral and notified laboratory, the product should be sent there for testing. Be it noted that this statement has been made by Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. Be that it may. Regard being had to the aforesaid concession, it is directed that the samples earlier collected by the Local Commissioner appointed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, shall be sent to the Mysore laboratory for testing. The test reports shall be produced before this Court.

8. During the pendency of this appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi shall not proceed with the cases pending before it.

9. Let this appeal be listed along with SLP (C) No. 33251 of 2015 on 13.01.2016.

———

You may also like