Faculty of Law, GLS University
Moot Problem
Semester I
1. The Republic of Indica is a federal country located in the southeastern part of the globe,
consisting of twenty-eight states. It is one of the most populous and economically robust
nations in the world, with a diversified industrial base. The state of Marin Pradesh lies in
the central region of Indica and is known for its regulatory infrastructure, especially in the
domain of food and health safety.
2. Pestello Ltd., a reputed multinational food processing company, operates in Indica through
its wholly owned subsidiary Pestello Indica Ltd., which has its registered office at Jiogaon,
Saryana. One of its flagship products is an instant noodle brand marketed under the name
“SLURY”.
3. In December 2024, the Food Safety Department of the State of Marin Pradesh conducted
random testing of various food items available in the market. The laboratory analysis
revealed that SLURY noodles contained lead beyond the permissible limits and had
misleading labeling which stated “No Added MSG” (Monosodium Glutamate), despite
chemical presence.
4. On January 1, 2025, the Food Safety Department issued a state-wide ban on the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of SLURY noodles. The department also issued
advisories to recall all existing stocks. However, despite this ban, it was observed that
SLURY noodles were still being sold at various retail stores across multiple states.
5. Mr. Nirdesh Marinwala, aged 28 years, a resident of Bhavyanagar, Capital City, Marin
Pradesh, is a chemical engineer and a regular consumer of SLURY noodles. On March 5,
2025, while shopping at a well-known local grocery store named Annapurna Mart, located
at Shop No. 8, Ground Floor, Lotus Commercial Complex, Sardar Patel Road,
Bhavyanagar, Marin Pradesh – 442001, he found multiple packets of SLURY noodles on
the shelf. Knowing that the product had been banned over a month earlier, he was alarmed
and concerned about consumer safety. He took photographs of the product, also bought
few packets and collected the purchase invoice. Subsequently he filed a consumer
complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on
March 15, 2025, alleging violation of consumer rights, sale of banned and harmful
products, and non-compliance with food safety standards.
6. After hearing the parties, the NCDRC, in its order dated April 20, 2025, ruled in favour of
Mr. Nirdesh Marinwala. It held Pestello Indica Ltd. guilty of unfair trade practices under
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and imposed a penalty of ₹11 crore. The Commission
directed the company to:
- Immediately withdraw the remaining stock of SLURY noodles from the market;
- Rectify labeling to ensure food safety compliance;
- Publish a public apology in national newspapers within seven days.
7. Aggrieved by the order, Pestello Indica Ltd. filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indica on May 15, 2025, under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The company contended that:
- The ban was merely a temporary suspension until further notice, and it had not been
notified about a permanent nationwide prohibition;
- The availability of SLURY noodles in stores was due to the negligence of third-party
retailers and distributors, over whom it had no direct control;
- It complied with the standards laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006,
and therefore, the state-imposed ban was arbitrary, excessive, and violative of the
principles of natural justice.
8. The respondent, Mr. Nirdesh Marinwala, opposed the appeal, arguing that Pestello Indica
Ltd. cannot escape responsibility under the guise of third-party negligence. He asserted that
a reputed multinational brand must ensure complete control over its supply chain,
especially after an official government ban. He emphasized that continued sale of a
hazardous product violated consumer trust and public health norms. Further, he argued that
the product labelling stating “No Added MSG” was factually misleading, which constitutes
deceptive marketing under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and also violated
provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. He supported the NCDRC’s finding
that the penalty imposed was just, reasonable, and necessary to deter similar violations in
future.
9. The appeal is currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica for the final
arguments.
Disclaimer:
This problem is a hypothetical moot problem. It is only for an academic purpose having no concern with any of the
pending/decided cases before any court and all details and name of parties are fictitious and nothing to do with reality,
even if found similar it is only coincident. The related laws of Indica are same as the laws of India.
