{"id":97747,"date":"2007-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-13T15:06:04","modified_gmt":"2014-06-13T09:36:04","slug":"hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 09\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.9932 of 2006\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2006\n\n\n1.Hindustan Lever Limited,\n  165\/166, Backbay Reclamation,\n  Mumbai- 600 020.\n\n2.T.Sri Hari\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\nFood Inspector,\nNagercoil Municipality,\nNagercoil.\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to\ncall for the records in C.C.No.120 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial\nMagistrate No.II, Nagercoil and quash the same.\n\nFor Petitioners  : Mr.K.Asokan,\n\t\t    Senior Counsel for\n\t\t    M\/s.Gita Asokan\n\n\nFor Respondent   : Mr.Rajendran\n\t\t    Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThis petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.120<br \/>\nof 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil and<br \/>\nquash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this criminal original<br \/>\npetition as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt so happened that the respondent, Food Inspector on 26.03.2002<br \/>\nwent to the shop of the accused and collected  samples viz., 180gm (200 ml) of<br \/>\nDalda Vanaspathi. According to the Food Inspector, the label should contain any<br \/>\none of the captions found set out under Rule 32(i) of the Prevention of Food<br \/>\nAdulteration Rules, 1955 and it is extracted hereunder for easy reference:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;The month and year in capital letters upto which the product is best for<br \/>\nconsumption, in the following manner,     namely:-<br \/>\n&#8220;BEST BEFORE &#8230;&#8230;. MONTHS AND YEAR&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t\t\tOR             \t\t  \"BEST BEFORE .... MONTHS FROM\nPACKAGING\"\n\t\t\tOR\n\"BEST BEFORE .... MONTHS FROM\tMANUFACTURE\"\t\t\t     OR\n\"BEST BEFORE UPTO MONTH AND YEAR ...........\t\t\t     OR\n<\/pre>\n<p>&#8220;BEST BEFORE WITHIN &#8230;&#8230;..  MONTHS FROM  THE<br \/>\n  DATE OF PACKAGING\/MANUFACTURE&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>[For the period upto and inclusive of 1st September, 2001.]&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. However, his contention was that the actual label found on that<br \/>\nVanaspathi packet was as follows;\n<\/p>\n<p> \t  &#8220;BEST BEFORE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PACKAGING&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. Hence, the prosecution case for misbranding at the instance of<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the complaint filed by<br \/>\nthe Food Inspector before the Magistrate Court, this Criminal original petition<br \/>\nhas been filed on the grounds inter alia which would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe offence of misbranding is not worth being processed before the<br \/>\nCourt of law as the impugned label contains more information than what is<br \/>\nexpected under Rule 32(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.<br \/>\nThe consumers in no way were confused or obfuscated or mislead by such a label.<br \/>\nThe petitioner also would invoke the plea of limitation by relying on Section<br \/>\n468 of Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. Per contra, the respondent filed the counter affidavit<br \/>\nchallenging and disputing, contradicting and controverting the averments made in<br \/>\nthe Criminal Original Petition by contending thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   The complaint filed by the Food Inspector is self-explanatory, as<br \/>\nthe act complained of is in violation of 32(i) of the Prevention of Food<br \/>\nAdulteration Rules, 1955.  The consumer would have deceived if the said label is<br \/>\nnot exactly in commensurate with Rule 32(i) of PFA Rules.  The Public Analyst<br \/>\nReport would also support the prosecution case.  Since the petitioner did not<br \/>\nrespond to the notice sent by the respondent, for gathering more information<br \/>\nrelating to ownership, the delay occurred.  Accordingly, he prays for dismissal<br \/>\nof the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. The points for consideration are as to whether ex facie and prima<br \/>\nfacie, a case is made out under Section 32(i) of the said Act? and Whether the<br \/>\ncomplaint is barred by limitation?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel, the warp and woof of the<br \/>\ncase of the prosecution for misbranding is based on the public analysis report<br \/>\nand it is extracted hereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;1 x 200ml (180 g) of the sample was received in sealed packet with<br \/>\nprinted declaration : Dalda &#8211; The original Vanaspati Mfd. by Hindustan Lever<br \/>\nLtd., 165\/166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai- 400 020.  MKTD by: KICM Madras Ltd,<br \/>\nApex Plaxa IV Floor, 3 Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai &#8211; 34.<br \/>\nAnalysis done<br \/>\nResults of analysis<br \/>\nRemarks<br \/>\n Examination of the Label :-\n<\/p>\n<p> Pkd<\/p>\n<p> 01\/2002<\/p>\n<p>Best before declaration<br \/>\nBest before within 6 months from the date of packaging.<br \/>\nAs per Rule 32(i) of PFA Rules 1955 ( as amended upto date) the best before<br \/>\ndeclaration shall be mentioned on the label as follows: after 1st Sep. 2001<br \/>\n&#8220;Best before .. months from packaging&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>(The word &#8216;within&#8217; shall not be mentioned as<br \/>\n  per Rule 32(i) of PFA Rules, 1955 after<br \/>\n  1st Sep. 2001)<\/p>\n<p>Moisture                 \t: 0.08%<br \/>\nMelting point\t\t\t\t: 39.0* C<br \/>\nButyro-refractometer reading @ 60*C : 39.6<br \/>\nUnsaponifiable matter\t\t: 2.14<br \/>\nFree Fatty Acids as Oleic Acid: 0.18%<br \/>\nBaudouin test : Positive      : 2.3 redunits<br \/>\nTest for Vitamin A\t\t\t: Positive.\n<\/p>\n<p>and am of the opinion that the sample is misbranded, since the Best before<br \/>\ndeclaration present on the label is not as per Rule 32 of PFA Rules, 1955 as<br \/>\nmentioned above.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. It is therefore clear that the offence complained of is mainly by<br \/>\ntaking exception to the word &#8216;within&#8217; found in the label.  In the label itself<br \/>\nthe date of packaging and other details are found specified as follows;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;VANASPATHI DALDA<br \/>\nContents 1x200ml (180g)<br \/>\nPKD: 01\/2002<br \/>\nMRP: Rs.30\/-\n<\/p>\n<p> BEST BEFORE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PACKAGING<br \/>\nMFD.BY Hindustan Lever Limited<br \/>\n165\/166, Backbay reclamation, Mumbai-400 020<br \/>\nMktd by: KICM Madras Ltd, Apex Plaza IV Floor, 3,<br \/>\nNungambakkam High Rd, Ch-34&#8243;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. It is made clear that the perusal of the label in no way would<br \/>\nsidetrack or mislead any ordinary genuine purchasers.  I could see no force in<br \/>\nthe contention of the respondent that such a version in the label would mislead<br \/>\nany one.  Normally, genuine purchaser would not get himself bamboozled or<br \/>\nhoodwinked, sidetracked or obfuscated by such label.  The object of<br \/>\nincorporating those model forms under Rule 32(i) of the PFA Rules is that the<br \/>\npurchaser should know at the time of purchase, whether he is purchasing an<br \/>\narticle which is capable of being used.  Here, the actual label found on the<br \/>\nVanaspathi packet is more than sufficient to convey such purchaser an idea about<br \/>\nthe genuineness of the product and it also enables the consumer to take a<br \/>\ndecision whether to purchase it or not.  As such mere use of the word &#8216;within&#8217;<br \/>\nas a surplusage would not push the petitioner\/accused within the ambit of the<br \/>\nPenal Provisions of the Food Adulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code which embodies the maxim de<br \/>\nminimis non curat lex (the law takes no account of trifles) also could be<br \/>\npressed into service in favour of the petitioner\/accused and the distinction<br \/>\nsought to be made by the respondent is one that of tweedledum and tweedledee.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the proceedings based on such flimsy ground, should be quashed and<br \/>\naccordingly, it is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. In view of the decision to quash the complaint, the limitation<br \/>\npoint relegates itself to an insignificant position.  Admittedly, the complaint<br \/>\nis a delayed one, for which, for the first time in the counter, the Food<br \/>\nInspector has narrated about the non-cooperation of the accused for getting<br \/>\nparticulars of ownership relating to the product concerned.  However, in the<br \/>\ncomplaint, there is no reference to it and there is nothing on record to show<br \/>\nthat any petition was filed for invoking Section 473 of Cr.P.C.  Hence, on the<br \/>\nground of limitation also the prosecution case is bound to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. In view of the vulnerability of the complaint filed by the Food<br \/>\nInspector, which was taken on file as C.C.No.120 of 2006, being writ large,<br \/>\nproceedings initiated thereunder are quashed including the complaint.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gcg<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Food Inspector,<br \/>\n  Nagercoil Municipality,<br \/>\n  Nagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09\/04\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9932 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 1.Hindustan Lever Limited, 165\/166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai- 600 020. 2.T.Sri Hari &#8230; Petitioners Vs. Food Inspector, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil. &#8230; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-13T09:36:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-13T09:36:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1130,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-13T09:36:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-13T09:36:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-13T09:36:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007"},"wordCount":1130,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007","name":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-13T09:36:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-food-inspector-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Food Inspector on 9 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}