The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Amit Bansal, has recently quashed a summoning order issued against multinational fashion company H&M Pvt. Ltd. for an alleged violation of Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The court observed that the rules do not apply to "loose garments" and ruled that H&M Pvt. Ltd. was not liable for the violation.
The case revolved around an inspection conducted at H&M's retail store in Select City Walk Mall, Saket. The Legal Metrology Department asserted that H&M had failed to comply with mandatory labelling requirements for a cardigan's size, leading to an allegation of violating Rule 13(3)(b) of the 2011 Rules.
After the inspection, the department issued a notice on January 31, 2016, claiming a violation and demanding a penalty of Rs. 2000, as stipulated under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. H&M's representation seeking clarification that the 2011 Rules do not apply to their products, sold in an open condition, was dismissed. Subsequently, a complaint was filed, and a summons was issued on May 2, 2016.
H&M moved the High Court to set aside the summoning order. The company contended that its products are non-pre-packaged commodities and, therefore, the 2011 Rules are not applicable. They referred to an advisory from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division, supporting their contention.
The High Court examined the definition of a 'pre-packaged' commodity under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the specific rule invoked in the case. It determined that the 2011 Rules are only relevant to 'pre-packaged' commodities, and thus the labelling requirements do not apply to garments sold in loose form.
The court also considered the advisory from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division, which clarified that a loose garment sold after personal examination by the consumer does not fall under the category of 'pre-packaged commodity'. The court concluded that the items sold by H&M are in loose form and not packaged, aligning with the definition of 'pre-packaged commodity'.
Based on these observations, the court concluded that H&M had not violated the mentioned rule, and the summoning order was quashed. The court emphasized that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process. The court allowed H&M's plea and set aside the summoning order, along with the related criminal complaint and proceedings.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
