The Delhi High Court has halted enforcement against Emami Agrotech Limited under a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) notice over the “Emami Healthy & Tasty” name used on the company’s edible oils. The court directed the respondents “not to take any precipitative action” until the matter is next heard on 15 February 2027.

Justice Amit Mahajan passed the interim order on 15 October 2026 in a writ petition, W.P.(C) 15491/2026, filed by Emami Agrotech against the Union of India and others. The company challenged a show cause notice dated 5 June 2026 and a further letter dated 17 July 2026. LiveLaw and Bar and Bench reported that the notice came from FSSAI, and BestMediaInfo reported that both did. The order itself does not name FSSAI and refers to both as issued by the first respondent.

What the court found

According to the order, the show cause notice stated that the trade name “Emami Healthy & Tasty” was likely to mislead consumers. Emami told the court the notice did not explain how the words “healthy and tasty” were misleading, and that its reply, filed on 23 June 2026, had not been adjudicated before the July letter was issued.

Prima facie, the perusal of the SCN indicates that no reason has been given why the petitioner’s referring the term ‘Healthy and Tasty’ is misleading.

Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court, order of 15 October 2026

The order also records submissions made for Emami: that the respondents had not claimed the product was not healthy and tasty, that “Emami Healthy & Tasty” is a registered trademark, that instructions had been given to State authorities to act against the product as non-compliant with the Act, and that action had been taken in an arbitrary manner at the instance of other companies. These are the company’s submissions. The court has not ruled on them.

Counsel for the respondents accepted notice, and the order allows replies to be filed before the next hearing. FSSAI’s own arguments are not set out in the order, and none of the reports reviewed carried a comment from the regulator on the ruling.

The order is interim. BestMediaInfo noted that it does not settle whether the branding complies with applicable food regulations.

How the case arose

BestMediaInfo reported that the June notice questioned the labelling and advertising of Emami’s edible oils, including sunflower oil and kachchi ghani mustard oil, sold under the “Emami Healthy & Tasty” name. It said FSSAI identified eight food businesses in June, including Emami, over potentially misleading brand names and product claims, and that the 17 July communication directed food safety commissioners across states and Union Territories to start enforcement action against specified businesses, Emami among them. The other businesses on that list have not been named in the reports reviewed.

Emami has also gone to the Calcutta High Court, which granted it interim protection from coercive action on 6 October, with a hearing on 25 November, according to BestMediaInfo.

A regulator under challenge

The order lands during a wider FSSAI enforcement drive on labelling and claims. Bloomberg, in a report carried by Business Standard on 13 October, said that PepsiCo, Reliance Consumer Products and Monster Beverage had challenged FSSAI notices in court, and that a court had found the companies were not given adequate opportunity to respond. FSSAI chief executive Rajit Punhani told Bloomberg that large food makers were resisting, but that the regulator was far stronger and had consumer support.

Emami’s challenge rests on process: whether a notice explains its reasoning, and whether a reply is considered before enforcement follows. The court finding Bloomberg reported in the other companies’ cases also concerned process: the opportunity to respond or present their case to the regulator.

F&B Today’s reading

  • Analysis: The order turns on reasons, not on the word “healthy” itself. Brands holding FSSAI notices over names or claims should check whether the notice says why the claim misleads, and whether their reply was decided before any enforcement letter went to the states.
  • Analysis: Emami argued that its name is a registered trademark, but the court has not ruled on that point. Brand owners should not treat trademark registration as clearance under food labelling and advertising law.
  • Analysis: With hearings due in Calcutta in November and Delhi in February, what makes a brand name misleading stays unsettled into 2027. Companies planning launches built on health words face that uncertainty until the cases are decided.