Maggi may be back in the market (and selling like hot cakes) but it’s legal ordeal continues before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. .The apex consumer tribunal today reserved its judgment on an application filed by the Union that had sought to conduct further tests on 31 batches of Maggi at an accredited laboratory..The arguments over the application which went on for two consecutive days, saw the counsels for Nestle vehemently opposing the request terming it as being, ‘outside the scope of the Union’s complaint.’.Senior Advocate Iqbal Chagla appeared for Nestle along with Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam..Chagla submitted before the Bench of Justice VK Jain and Dr. BC Gupta that the class action suit initiated by the Govt was itself based on numerable analysis reports which had concluded that the product was hazardous for public consumption. Therefore, Chagla argued, that the onus of discharging that allegation rested upon the company and by introducing requests for further testing of samples, the Union was seeking to bring back the case from ‘where it started’..He further submitted,.“I humbly submitted to the directions of this Court on the last date for testing of my samples. But I regret that position now and will not subject my product for further testing.”.Nestle led a strong fightback to the Union’s application with Chagla submitting that these proceedings were ‘adversarial and not inquisitorial in nature’, and had to be treated as such..“Even in their application, they are relying on the same reports [mentioned in the complaint] that say that the noodles are hazardous. For how long will this continue? Do we keep improving a case or should we exercise judicial discipline and decide a case on the existing pleadings? I say it is the latter.”.Picking up on the tenor of Nestle’s arguments, the Bench questioned the government whether it was willing to give an undertaking that if the present request for another analysis was allowed, it would cease to make any such more requests..Responding to this and Nestle’s stance, ASG Sanjay Jain argued that the order of the Bombay High Court did not eclipse its jurisdiction as the present dispute was ‘clearly covered within the four corners of a consumer forum.’.After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the Bench proceeded to reserve its order on this specific application.
Maggi may be back in the market (and selling like hot cakes) but it’s legal ordeal continues before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. .The apex consumer tribunal today reserved its judgment on an application filed by the Union that had sought to conduct further tests on 31 batches of Maggi at an accredited laboratory..The arguments over the application which went on for two consecutive days, saw the counsels for Nestle vehemently opposing the request terming it as being, ‘outside the scope of the Union’s complaint.’.Senior Advocate Iqbal Chagla appeared for Nestle along with Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam..Chagla submitted before the Bench of Justice VK Jain and Dr. BC Gupta that the class action suit initiated by the Govt was itself based on numerable analysis reports which had concluded that the product was hazardous for public consumption. Therefore, Chagla argued, that the onus of discharging that allegation rested upon the company and by introducing requests for further testing of samples, the Union was seeking to bring back the case from ‘where it started’..He further submitted,.“I humbly submitted to the directions of this Court on the last date for testing of my samples. But I regret that position now and will not subject my product for further testing.”.Nestle led a strong fightback to the Union’s application with Chagla submitting that these proceedings were ‘adversarial and not inquisitorial in nature’, and had to be treated as such..“Even in their application, they are relying on the same reports [mentioned in the complaint] that say that the noodles are hazardous. For how long will this continue? Do we keep improving a case or should we exercise judicial discipline and decide a case on the existing pleadings? I say it is the latter.”.Picking up on the tenor of Nestle’s arguments, the Bench questioned the government whether it was willing to give an undertaking that if the present request for another analysis was allowed, it would cease to make any such more requests..Responding to this and Nestle’s stance, ASG Sanjay Jain argued that the order of the Bombay High Court did not eclipse its jurisdiction as the present dispute was ‘clearly covered within the four corners of a consumer forum.’.After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the Bench proceeded to reserve its order on this specific application.
