Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Arpit Mangal (social media influencer) and his company (referred to as Trustified); Respondent No. 1 – Emami Limited; Respondent No. 2 – other parties; Google LLC also appeared as a respondent.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal against an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 03 May 2025, which restrained the appellants from displaying or publishing any statement, video or written material concerning Emami’s product “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”.
  • Background: The appellants run a public‑interest testing platform that anonymously orders health‑supplement products, conducts blind laboratory testing, and publishes findings on their website and YouTube channel. They selected “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus” for testing after consumer polls and complaints.
  • Testing Process: Products are ordered in pairs under pseudonyms, delivery and unboxing are video‑recorded, and samples are sent to accredited labs (Eurofins Analytical Services India Private Limited – NABL and IAS accredited; also Eureka Laboratory). Results are posted after a 24‑hour window for the manufacturer to comment; if no comment, results are uploaded.
  • Laboratory Findings:
  • Withanolide content: 0.60 g per 100 g (far below the 5 % ≈ 5 g per 100 g required for therapeutic benefit).
  • Heavy‑metal analysis (Level‑2): Lead – 69 % excess over the API limit of 10 mg/kg in the first test, 45 % excess in the re‑test; Mercury – 628 % excess in the first test, 745 % excess in the re‑test (API limits: 10 mg/kg for lead, 1 mg/kg for mercury).
  • Procedural Timeline: Video uploaded on 26 March 2025 after no response to the appellants’ e‑mail dated 25 March 2025. Emami issued a legal notice on 17 April 2025 alleging defamation and violation of ASCI influencer guidelines.
  • Legal Arguments – Appellants:
  • Invoked defence of truth and fair comment, citing double‑tested accredited reports.
  • Asserted that the Bonnard principle (requiring proof that truth defence will fail before granting an injunction) applies, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (2025 SCC 741).
  • Highlighted their credentials: certified sports‑science nutritionist (K11 School of Fitness Science) and personal trainer (American Council of Exercise), recognised by the Delhi High Court in San Nutrition Private Ltd. v. Arpit Mangal (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2701).
  • Stated that the video was not an advertisement; therefore ASCI guidelines on “material connection” did not apply.
  • Legal Arguments – Respondent (Emami):
  • Claimed the product is an Ayurvedic proprietary medicine with a valid drug licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, creating a presumption of compliance.
  • Alleged the appellants lacked expertise in Ayurveda, sought commercial gain, and used defamatory language (“poison in a bottle”, “cancerous”).
  • Asserted the appellants applied incorrect API limits (treating the product as a food supplement rather than a herbo‑metallic formulation) and that the lab reports lacked brand/batch details.
  • Contended the ASCI influencer code required a medical qualification for health‑related claims.
  • Court’s Analysis:
  • Recognised that the product is a “formulation” (Part‑II, Volume‑II of the Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia) and that the applicable heavy‑metal limits are 10 ppm for lead and 1 ppm for mercury, which the lab reports exceeded.
  • Held that the overlapping categories (Ayurvedic proprietary medicine, herbo‑metallic preparation, formulation) do not exempt the product from the stricter limits.
  • Determined that the absence of brand or batch numbers does not invalidate the reports, given the appellants’ anonymised testing protocol.
  • Concluded that the appellants’ qualifications satisfy the ASCI requirement for health‑nutrition influencers, and the video was not an advertisement, so the guidelines were inapplicable.
  • Applied the Bonnard principle, finding that the defence of truth was available and that the trial judge had erred by granting an ex parte injunction without considering this defence.
  • Rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the heavy‑metal content was justified by the presence of Swarna Bhasma and Yashad Bhasma, noting that the API limits for formulations still applied.
  • Final Outcome
  • The Court allowed FMA No. 1036 of 2025 on contest, setting aside the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 03 May 2025.
  • CAN 1 of 2025 was also disposed of.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • A subsequent prayer for a stay of the judgment was refused, ensuring the injunction remains vacated.
  • The judgment is tentative and does not prejudice the trial judge’s future consideration of the injunction application on merits.

Topics: Defamation, Consumer Safety