The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by Procter and Gamble (P&G) against an order to restrain it from selling its detergent powder under brand name Tide in non-standard size packages. Issuing a notice to the Goa government,the court sought their response by the second week of April,as to why P&G should not be allowed to package its product under specific sizes. The court has also sought a reply on interim relief to let P&G dispose of products already packed in the sizes. A Bench led by Justice HL Dattu,however,refused to stay at this stage the Bombay High Courts order,endorsing the states view and prohibiting the manufacturer from even making a declaration on the packages,allegedly contrary to the prescribed rules. Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi,appearing for P&G,argued that if the High Court order was not stayed,its products,packaged similarly,would be rendered outdated and unmarketable. The High Court had held that under the Legal Metrology Act,2009,and related rules,the manufacturer was not permitted to pack his product in non-standard size packages. The Goa government had deleted the provision to the Rule 5 by an amendment which came into force in November 1,last year. The High Court said that despite knowledge of the amendment,P&G had packaged the goods in a non-standard size package,thus violating the rules. The legal metrology department in January had issued seizure memos to the company,asking it not to sell Tide in 180 gm and 110 gm respectively at an MRP of Rs 10 each until further orders. This prompted P&G to move the High Court,alleging the impugned order was flawed and led to a grossly perverse position of law in as much as it rendered Rule 5(3) meaningless. The very purpose of such rule was to provide for certain products,namely,value based packages priced in the range of Re 1 to Rs 10 to be exempted from the standard quantities prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Rules,it added. According to the appeal,P&G was actually acting in the best interests of the consumer by providing more quantity of product at lesser value and also by making additional disclosures that the goods were packed in a non-standard package. P&G Home Products Ltd said it had adhered to the requirements of Rule 5(3) and had not contravened any provisions of the 2009 Act or the amended rules of 2011.
