In a hearing that lasted for nearly three hours, consumer food giant Nestle India said that the Union Government was looking to approach multiple forums for getting a favorable order against Nestle..Senior Advocate Iqbal Chagla, appearing for Nestle India along with Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, argued before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the Bombay High Court’s order lifting the ban operated as res-judicata against the present class action suit..He further said that issues that had been effectively ‘settled’ by the High Court were the same ones which were being agitated again in the Union’s complaint..“The present complaint relies on the same reports that were produced before the Bombay High Court, to say that our products are unsafe for consumption. These very reports have been rejected by the Court on the basis that they were not prepared by accredited laboratories and fresh tests were ordered. We have 3,566 analysis reports which categorically state that our product is safe. Then where is the question of the complainant seeking fresh analysis?”.Chagla also argued on the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court to hear the complaint in the first place, stating that the Food Safety & Standards Act 2006 had a mechanism in place to deal with disputes of such nature..“The issue is squarely covered under the FSS Act. Section 68 of the Act provides for a comprehensive adjudication apparatus in which case the jurisdiction of this court (NCDRC) stands excluded.”.Chagla’s submissions came in the background of applications filed by the Union seeking fresh sampling tests to be conducted on the two-minute instant noodles. Nestle had also filed an application seeking the dismissal of the class-action suit. Pressing upon this aspect Chagla argued,.“Sufficient damage has already been done in public regarding the safety of the product that has been in the market for thirty years. A company like Nestle prides itself on the safety of its products. Now to seek a relief (after the Bombay HC’s order) would be akin to creating a doubt in the mind of the public. Are we to be put in a position where we are subjected to contradictory orders?”.Summing up his arguments, Chagla said that the bona-fides of the complaint ought to be probed in such a case, where the Union was attempting to ‘resuscitate a litigation that was clearly covered by res-judicata.’.Due to paucity of time, the matter was adjourned to October 15. Chagla is expected to finish his arguments and the Union, through ASG Sanjay Jain is expected to make its submissions on both applications – one seeking fresh tests on Maggi Noodles, as well as the plea seeking the dismissal of suit by Nestle.