Bombay High Court
JNTL CONSUMER HEALTH PVT LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED AND ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THR AGP AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the seizure order is effectively lifted, permitting the petitioners to dispose of the seized stock outside Maharashtra, and therefore the petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioners, JNTL Consumer Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. and an associate, challenged the seizure of their electrolyte drink packaged in tetra packs, valued at approximately Rs. 2.25‑2.5 crore, by the Government of Maharashtra. They sought permission to dispose of the seized stock outside the State within 75‑90 days after relabeling the products as per departmental directions. The court examined email communications, an interim order of the Delhi High Court in FDC Limited Vs. Union of India, and a Division Bench judgment in JNTL Consumer Health Vs. Union of India, noting that the regulatory communications did not constitute a directive for seizure. The respondents, relying on a fresh instruction from the concerned officer, agreed that the stock could be sold outside Maharashtra provided an inventory is maintained. Concluding that the effect of the impugned seizure order had been nullified, the court disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate legal basis for lifting the seizure order on the electrolyte drink stock?
- Whether the petitioners may dispose of the seized stock outside the State of Maharashtra within a specified time frame?
- Whether the relabeling of the product in compliance with departmental directions affects the legality of the seizure.
Subjects
- seizure
- food labeling
- electrolyte drink
- disposal of seized stock
- regulatory compliance
- High Court
- writ petition
Judgment
(4)-WP-9336-26.odt
PANCHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2026.09.01
WRIT PETITION NO. 9336 OF 2026
11:19:07
+0530
M/s. JNTL Consumer Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Mr.
Suhaan Mukerji, Ms. Pragati Mishra & Mr. Shubhank Patel i/by PLR
Chambers, for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the Respondents
– State.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.:
1. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate, Dr. Birendra Saraf,
on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader,
Mr. Kakade on behalf of the Respondents, State. On 18th August, 2026, we
had passed the following order:-
“1. List this Petition ‘High on Board’ on 31st August,
2026 in the ‘Urgent Admissions Category’. Parties may note
that the matter would not be adjourned.
2. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits,
on instructions from the Officers present in the Court, that in
the meanwhile, if the Petitioners desire, the words
‘Electrolyte Drink’ appearing on the packaging, may be
1
(4)-WP-9336-26.odt
camouflaged and the seized products worth Rs.2.5 crores,
can be sold in the market by the Petitioners.”
2. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners has relied upon
two email communications dated 4th May, 2026 and 5th May, 2026. Both are
taken on record and collectively marked as ‘X-1’ for identification. He has
then relied upon an interim order passed by the Single Bench of the Delhi
High Court dated 7th July, 2026 and the judgment dated 25th August, 2026
delivered in Writ Petition (C) No. 8602 of 2026 (FDC Limited Vs. Union of
India & Anr.). He has also relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
Respondent, Joint Commissioner (Food), Konkan Division, dated 14 th
August, 2026, more specifically paragraph No.4, in the light of the
observations of the Delhi High Court in the interim order dated 7 th July, 2026
in FDC Limited (supra), more particularly, paragraph 6, which indicates that
the communication ‘X-1’ was just a regulatory position for information and
coordination and did not itself direct any specific act of seizure.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Kakade has
canvassed his submissions in the light of the affidavit-in-reply and has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court in the matter of JNTL Consumer Health India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of
India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del. 10553.
2
(4)-WP-9336-26.odt
4. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners pointed out that
the Petitioners have already indicated to the Department, vide
communication dated 15th July, 2026, that the labels would be replaced in
tune with the dictate of the Department with effect from 1 st August, 2026.
Accordingly, Petitioners have abided by the directions of the Department and
have changed the labels.
5. Insofar as, the seized stock, which is already packaged in tetra
packs, valued in money to the tune of Rs.2.25 crores approximately, he
submits, on instructions from the Petitioners, that this seized stock, which is
preserved by the Petitioners under the orders of the Department, would be
taken outside the State of Maharashtra for sale. While relying upon the
interim order of the Delhi High Court as well as the final order in FDC
Limited (supra), he points out that the Delhi High Court has given eight
months time to the said Petitioner to dispose of the seized stock. The present
Petitioners are seeking a period somewhere between 75 days to 90 days for
the disposal of the said stock outside the State of Maharashtra.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader sought a passover
and after fresh instructions, submits that the concerned Officer has instructed
him to say that the said seized stock should be disposed off by the Petitioners
outside the State of Maharashtra. A proper inventory should be maintained to
indicate the seized stock that has been transported and sold.
3
(4)-WP-9336-26.odt
7. The learned Senior Advocate submits that in view of the above,
as the seizure has been lifted by permitting the disposal of the seized stock
outside the State of Maharashtra, this Petition may be disposed off. The
learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, has no objection.
8. In view of the above, the statements made are recorded. This
Petition is disposed off, since the effect of the impugned seizure order has
concluded.
9. It goes without saying, now that the Petitioners have prepared
new tetra packs for packaging the same food item, there would be no reason
for the Department to initiate coercive steps against the Petitioners in view of
the seized stock, which is now to be disposed off outside the State of
Maharashtra, if some stray packages are found on the shelves of some
shops or at the end of the distributors.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
4
Checking your session…