Delhi HC Warns Patanjali of Costs in 'Useless' Appeal Against Dabur

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has orally expressed strong reservations about Patanjali Ayurved's appeal against an interim injunction restraining its allegedly disparaging Chyavanprash advertisements, cautioning that costs could be imposed for pursuing "luxury litigation."

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to Patanjali Ayurved, questioning the merits of its appeal challenging a single-judge order that restrained the company from airing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur India's Chyavanprash product. A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla suggested the appeal might be frivolous, threatening to impose costs if it was found to be a case of "useless" or "luxury litigation."

The matter reached the division bench after Patanjali contested a July 3, 2023, interim order which favored Dabur India Limited. The single judge had found, on a prima facie basis, that Patanjali's advertisements generically disparaged all other Chyavanprash products on the market, implying they were "ordinary" and not made according to authentic Ayurvedic principles.

During the hearing, the division bench made its skepticism clear from the outset, directly addressing Patanjali's counsel, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta.

"You have painted black everyone who is making chyawanprash saying that they don't know how to make it…This is a generic disparagement case. The interim order is purely discretionary. Why should we interfere in appeal? The principles are applied correctly,” the Court remarked.

This observation cuts to the core of two critical legal issues: the doctrine of generic disparagement in advertising law and the high threshold required for an appellate court to overturn a discretionary interim order.

The Single Judge's Injunction: A Question of Authenticity

The dispute originates from a series of television commercials (TVCs) and print advertisements by Patanjali. The single judge, in the impugned order, had meticulously analyzed the content and narrative of these advertisements. The court noted that Patanjali’s campaign portrayed competing Chyavanprash products as "ordinary" and suggested consumers should not settle for them because they were not prepared according to ancient Ayurvedic texts and traditions.

The single judge specifically ordered the deletion of two key lines from the advertisements:

• From the print ads: "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?"
• From the TVC: "Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyaan nahi Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi Ki Parampara ke Anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge" (Translation: "Those who do not have knowledge of Ayurveda or Vedas, how can they make original Chyawanprash according to the tradition of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri and Chyawanrishi").

The court had also highlighted the significant influence of Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev, whose presence in the advertisements lent an air of expertise and authority to the claims, making the disparaging narrative more potent. The injunction was granted based on the prima facie finding that these statements went beyond permissible marketing puffery and actively denigrated a class of competing products.

The Division Bench's Scrutiny: "Aaltu Faaltu Appeals" and Irreparable Loss

In the appellate hearing, the division bench focused its inquiry on the necessity and tenability of the appeal itself. Justice Shankar’s remarks underscored the judiciary's growing impatience with what it perceives as attempts to challenge every unfavorable interim order, especially in commercial matters.

"Where is the irreparable loss? Nothing. We have put our mind. If we find that it is a luxury litigation, we would impose costs…We are not going to allow every “aaltu faaltu” [useless/rubbish] appeals now….," Justice Shankar stated emphatically.

This line of questioning highlights a fundamental principle of appellate review concerning interim injunctions. An appellate court is not meant to re-evaluate the evidence and substitute its own discretion for that of the trial judge. Interference is typically warranted only when the single judge's order is demonstrably arbitrary, perverse, legally unsound, or has ignored relevant material. The division bench's stance suggests that it currently sees no such flaw in the single judge’s reasoning.

By questioning the "irreparable loss" to Patanjali, the court signaled its view that complying with the interim injunction—merely removing or modifying specific lines from an advertisement—does not constitute the kind of grave, irreversible harm that would necessitate urgent appellate intervention. The threat of imposing costs serves as a powerful deterrent against clogging the appellate system with what might be deemed non-essential or strategic litigation.

In response to the bench's pointed observations, Senior Advocate Mehta requested time to confer with Dabur's counsel to potentially resolve the issue. The court acceded to this request and has scheduled the next hearing for September 23.

Legal Implications and Industry Context

This case offers several key takeaways for legal practitioners specializing in intellectual property, advertising, and commercial litigation:

• Generic Disparagement as a Cause of Action: The court's focus on "generic disparagement" is significant. While many cases involve one brand directly targeting another, this dispute underscores that an advertiser can be held liable for disparaging an entire category of goods. Claims of unique authenticity or superior knowledge that implicitly brand all competitors as inferior or inauthentic are particularly vulnerable to legal challenges.

• The High Bar for Appealing Discretionary Orders: The bench's comments serve as a practical reminder of the limited scope of appeal against interim orders. Counsel filing such appeals must be prepared to demonstrate a fundamental error in law or a perverse exercise of discretion by the single judge, rather than simply arguing for a different interpretation of the facts.

• Judicial Intolerance for Frivolous Litigation: Justice Shankar's "aaltu faaltu appeals" remark reflects a broader judicial trend of using costs as a tool to manage dockets and discourage litigants from using the appellate process as a delay tactic or for minor grievances. This approach is becoming increasingly common in high-volume commercial courts.

• Advertising in the Wellness Sector: The battle between Patanjali and Dabur is emblematic of the fierce competition in India's fast-growing wellness and FMCG market. As brands vie for consumer trust, claims of tradition, purity, and authenticity become powerful marketing tools. This case illustrates the legal boundaries of such claims and the risks of crossing from puffery into disparagement.

As the parties explore a potential settlement before the next hearing date, the legal community will be watching closely. The division bench's final word on the matter—whether it proceeds to a full hearing or is resolved amicably—will further clarify the judiciary's stance on aggressive advertising tactics and the appropriate use of the appellate system in commercial disputes.