Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: India

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-10 of 82

Sherfudeen v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [India] [August 01, 2016]

Information about this decision coming soon.

M/s Omkar Agency v. Food Safety & Standards Authority of India [India] [July 19, 2016]

Information about this decision coming soon.

Pranvesh v. Union of India [India] [June 30, 2016]

Information about this decision coming soon.

S. Cyril Alexander v. Union of India [India] [June 22, 2016]

Cyril Alexander, a tobacco control advocate, filed a public interest lawsuit requesting that the government exclude tobacco companies from the corporate social responsibility (csr) requirements mandated by Indian law in order to prevent the companies from earning goodwill. The court directed the government to determine how tobacco companies can best meet their csr obligations and to take appropriate action within four months of the decision. Not satisfied that the government had undertaken the court's requested actions, Mr. Alexander filed a contempt petition. The court dismissed the petition on the basis that a May 2016 government circular clarifies that tobacco industry csr shall not contravene India's omnibus tobacco control law. Although Mr. Alexander maintained that his request seeks a general prohibition on tobacco industry csr, the court held that such a request cannot be the subject matter of the contempt petition. 

Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India [India] [May 04, 2016]

Using the powers conferred by India’s omnibus tobacco control law, the government introduced new graphic health warnings in October 2014 that, among other things, increased the graphic health warning size from 40 percent of one side to 85 percent of both sides of tobacco product packaging and amended the rotation scheme of the warnings.  The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association, the Tobacco Institute of India, and other pro-tobacco entities challenged the validity of the 2014 pack warning rules in five cases in the Karnataka High Court – Bengaluru, and the court initially stayed the implementation of the warnings via interim orders.  Following a petition by tobacco control advocates, the court lifted the stays, and a division bench of the court affirmed the decision on appeal.  The association and others challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.  Paving the way for immediate implementation of the warnings, the Supreme Court, on May 4, 2016, directed that the matter be decided within six weeks in the Karnataka High Court by a bench constituted by the Karnataka Chief Justice and that any stays of the warnings in other high courts not be given effect until the conclusion of the matter.  The Supreme Court identified pending pack warning challenges in courts throughout India (more than 27 in number) and transferred these cases to Karnataka.  A Karnataka High Court ruling in this matter should resolve all challenges to the legality of the pack warning rules.  The case still is pending on the merits in Karnataka.

Tobacco Institute of India v. Union of India [India] [March 11, 2016]

The Union of India and Health For Millions filed an interim application seeking vacation of the High Court’s December 4, 2015 stay (and January 6, 2016 modification) of a 2014 Ministry of Health notification establishing pack warnings on 85% of both sides of tobacco product packaging.  They alleged that a May 2009 Supreme Court order in a pack warnings matter (W.P. 549/2008) still pending before the Supreme Court directed that no court in India may pass orders inconsistent with the May 2009 order and that this May order was not considered in the High Court’s December 4, 2015 ruling.  The Karnataka Beedi Association and others maintained that the May 2009 Supreme Court order pertains to implementation of the 2008 pack warning rules and not the October 2014 rules.  They argued that the order thus cannot be relied upon in this matter.  Noting, among other things, that Health For Millions has filed an application for rigorous enforcement of the 2014 rules in W.P. 549/2008, the court observed that the May 2009 Supreme Court order is applicable to the writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court as issues relating to both the 2008 and 2014 rules are before the Supreme Court.  For this reason, the court held that the December 4, 2015 stay of the 2014 pack warnings rules must be lifted.  The Karnataka Beedi Association and others appealed, arguing that the constitutional validity of neither the 2008 nor the 2014 rules was at issue in the Supreme Court.  Instead, they maintain that the Supreme Court was adjudicating a writ of mandamus for the rules’ implementation.  Accordingly, the association argues that the high court must review the constitutional validity of the rules.  The high court disagreed and upheld the judge’s order lifting the stay.  The court also invited the association to approach the Supreme Court for further clarity so that the court can proceed further in these matters.

Tobacco Institute of India v. Union of India [India] [February 24, 2016]

The Union of India and Health For Millions filed an interim application seeking vacation of the High Court’s December 4, 2015 stay (and January 6, 2016 modification) of a 2014 Ministry of Health notification establishing pack warnings on 85% of both sides of tobacco product packaging.  They alleged that a May 2009 Supreme Court order in a pack warnings matter (W.P. 549/2008) still pending before the Supreme Court directed that no court in India may pass orders inconsistent with the May 2009 order and that this May order was not considered in the High Court’s December 4, 2015 ruling.  The Karnataka Beedi Association and others maintained that the May 2009 Supreme Court order pertains to implementation of the 2008 pack warning rules and not the October 2014 rules.  They argued that the order thus cannot be relied upon in this matter.  Noting, among other things, that Health For Millions has filed an application for rigorous enforcement of the 2014 rules in W.P. 549/2008, the court observed that the May 2009 Supreme Court order is applicable to the writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court as issues relating to both the 2008 and 2014 rules are before the Supreme Court.  For this reason, the court held that the December 4, 2015 stay of the 2014 pack warnings rules must be lifted. 

Tobacco Institute of India v. Union of India [India] [January 14, 2016]

The Tobacco Institute of India, a tobacco product retailer, a tobacco farmer, and a current smoker challenged the legality (as it relates to cigarettes) of an October 2014 Ministry of Health notification establishing pack warnings on 85% of both sides of tobacco product packaging.  The court noted that implementation of the pack warnings has been stayed in a matter concerning beedi packaging and that judicial discipline requires that a stay be granted here due to the similarity of the petitions.  Without ruling on the merits of the case, the court stayed the implementation of the pack warnings notification in a preliminary order.

Shoeab Aslam v. Health and Family Welfare [India] [January 07, 2016]

Shoeab Aslam, owner of a hotel business called Cafe and Sheesha Lounge, challenged a November 2015 order issued by the District Magistrate in Indore directing compliance with India's omnibus tobacco control law (COTPA) and its rules on smoking in public places. Mr. Aslam maintained that there cannot be a complete ban on smoking in hotels. The government however noted that the order did not completely ban smoking, but instead permitted the activity in smoking zones. The court took into account earlier judgments from the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court on hookah bars and upheld the order, finding it in consonance with COTPA and its rules.

Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India [India] [December 08, 2015]

The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association challenged the legality (as it relates to beedis) of an October 2014 Ministry of Health notification establishing pack warnings on 85% of both sides of tobacco product packaging.  Without ruling on the merits of the case, the court stayed the implementation of the pack warnings notification in a preliminary order. 

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.