Bombay HC Seeks Solution To Relabel ₹2.24 Crore eRZL Beverage Stock

The Bombay High Court is seeking a practical solution to remove the word 'electrolyte' from ₹2.24 crore worth of seized eRZL fruit beverage stock.

The court's concern arises from the potential for simply covering the disputed word with a sticker, which could make the genuine products appear counterfeit to consumers.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad was hearing a petition filed by M/s JNTL Consumer Health (India) Pvt. Ltd., challenging the seizure of its ready-to-serve fruit beverage brand, 'eRZL'.

The stock was seized by Food Safety Officers in Bhiwandi, Thane, in early June 2026, during enforcement action at the company's premises. The seizure was valued at more than ₹2.24 crore.

According to the State, the formulation used in the company's beverage did not meet the standards approved by the World Health Organization (WHO), and therefore, the use of the term 'electrolyte' on the product packaging amounted to misrepresentation.

The company has already complied with the direction for its fresh production, and from August 1, newly manufactured stock has been labelled without the word 'electrolyte'.

The State has indicated that it is willing to release the seized stock, provided the company gives an undertaking that the products would be sold only after the disputed word is masked on the existing packaging.

However, the court has raised concerns over the manner in which the word would be covered, observing that placing a simple sticker over 'electrolyte' could give consumers the impression that the product was counterfeit or had been tampered with.

The court has asked senior advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for JNTL, to suggest a mechanism that would remove the disputed description while ensuring that consumers do not mistake the products for fake goods.

The matter has been kept for further hearing on August 31.

The case highlights the importance of accurate labelling and compliance with regulatory standards in the food and beverage industry.

The Bombay High Court's decision will have implications for the company and the industry as a whole, as it seeks to balance the need for compliance with the need to protect consumers from potential harm.

In the meantime, the company will have to wait for the court's decision on the matter, which will determine the fate of the seized stock and the future of its product labelling.

The court's concern for consumer protection is a significant aspect of the case, as it seeks to ensure that consumers are not misled by inaccurate labelling.

The case is a reminder of the importance of regulatory compliance and the need for companies to prioritize consumer protection in their labelling and packaging practices.