NCDRC Keeps In Abeyance Arrest Warrants Against Actor Salman Khan Over Alleged Misleading Advertisement

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an interim order on Wednesday (April 8) has kept in abeyance bailable arrest warrants issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against actor Salman Khan, in a complaint alleging misleading advertisement by Rajshree Pan Masala starring the actor. The Commission also stayed all further proceedings against the actor before the District Commission. Khan has challenged an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Rajasthan dated March 16 whereby the State Commission had declined to interfere with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated January 15. After hearing the submissions, a bench of President Justice AP Sahi and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya in its order said:"In order to appreciate the arguments and the submissions raised, it would be appropriate to examine the records of the District Commission as well as the State Commission. We therefore direct that the State Commission, Rajasthan shall send for the entire records of the District Commission as well as its own records pertaining to the subject matter including the proceedings under Section 72 and 73 alongwith complete order sheets and dispatch the same to the Registrar of this Commission for being perused by us. The records shall be sent by a Special Messenger after summoning the District Commission records as well. All records and orders be uploaded on the State Commission website if not already done to make it accessible the District Commission and the State Commission are directed to comply with this order and forthwith dispatch the records to this Commission to be presented before us on Tuesday next i.e. 14.04.2026"The NCDRC issued notice to respondent no.1-complainant and said:"In the background as indicated above, and also the issues raised since we have summoned the original records of the District Commission, all further proceedings before it shall remain stayed and the Authorities to whom directions have been issued by the District Commission shall be duly intimated of these proceedings. We have summoned the original records of the District Commission, all further proceedings before it shall remain stayed and the Authorities to whom directions have been issued by the District Commission shall be duly intimated of these proceedings. We also direct that the execution of any warrants issued by the District Commission shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of this matter before us". The actor is the brand ambassador of 'Silver Coated Elaichi' a product of Rajshree Pan Masala. Respondent no. 1, a practicing advocate in Jaipur filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum alleging that the advertisement for the product was misleading and sought a ban on the running of the advertisement as well as a penalty. It was alleged that the ad was being misused for the promotion of a pan masala product by introducing the caption saffron infused product and it was alleged that the product is injurious to health. Though the matter was listed on January 15, however it was taken up on January 6 and an interim order was passed by the district commission directing the company and the actor from engaging in any misleading publicity until a response to the complaint is filed and the matter was listed on February 6. Though the company was present before the district forum however the NCDRC noted that the district forum's order nowhere recorded the service of notice to the actor. The order however recorded that the parties had been heard and prima facie findings were recorded. The actor argued before NCDRC that though the matter was listed on January 15 but before this date the application of the complainant was entertained and interim orders were passed. When he appeared through counsel on January 15 before the district commission he was informed that the application for interim relief had been taken up already and orders had been passed. This the actor argued happened without issuance of notice to him or service of the application. It was submitted that the actor moved two applications on January 15, one for deleting him from the array of parties and the other for dismissal of the complaint. He submitted, that his counsel was intimated that complainant had already filed an application under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act for action against disobedience of interim order. According to the actor, this new application by the complainant was preferred only on January 15 and pointed to the record for the same. It was submitted that another application had been filed by the complainant with a "peculiar prayer" for issuing warrants against the actor. Senior advocate Ravi Prakash appearing for Khan submitted that once the actor had already appeared, then the prayer made that since the name of the company's owner is not available therefore warrant be issued against the actor, is completely incoherent. It was submitted that this request ...

NCDRC Keeps In Abeyance Arrest Warrants Against Actor Salman Khan Over Alleged Misleading Advertisement

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags