Soap vs handwash: In time of crisis, firms set aside age-old differences

Dettol and Lifebuoy promote hand washing with soap, setting aside their differences over hand hygiene standards.

Given the magnitude and scale of the current Covid-19 crisis and the need to reinforce simple hygiene habits among people, soap brands Dettol and Lifebuoy are finding common ground. Using different tools to put forth the point of cleanliness above all and the need to wash one’s hands well, the two are setting aside their age-old differences.

The two brands have been fighting a bitter battle over their ads in court for years, while one emphasises the efficacy of soap, the other pitches the potency of its handwash. In fact as recently as a month ago Hindustan Unilever (HUL) hauled RB Health (formerly Reckitt Benckiser) to the Bombay High Court over an ad spot.

The ad for Dettol Handwash, made an oblique reference to Lifebuoy soap from HUL by showing a bar similar to the latter in terms of colour and proportion.

HUL’s contention in court was that not only had RB Health disparaged its brand, but was also sending a “wrong” message that suggested soap and water for hand hygiene was not as effective as handwash. RB clarified that it was emphasising on personal hygiene and restating the proven fact that liquid handwash should be preferred over bar soaps.

“Unilever has filed an ill-advised suit claiming that Lifebuoy and red colour soaps are disparaged. Reckitt unilaterally decided to hold back the advertisement till April 21, 2020 and the Bombay High Court was informed about the same,” the company stated. While fighting over a bar of soap may have seemed ill-timed, experts at the time had seen nothing unusual as both Lifebuoy and Dettol are known to be combative.

Chanda Kochhar's plea against sacking has no legal ground: ICICI Bank to HC

The bank is seeking recovery of amounts towards the clawback of bonuses given to her from April 2006 to March 2018 after her termination of services by the bank.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday heard a petition filed by former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar challenging the validity of her termination by the lender. The hearing took place as the bank opposed a plea by Kochhar to keep the matter part-heard before the earlier bench of Justices Ranjit More and Surendra Tavade.

The bank is seeking recovery of amounts towards the clawback of bonuses given to her from April 2006 to March 2018 after her termination of services by the bank. Kochhar moved the high court on November 30, 2019, challenging "termination" of her employment by ICICI Bank, which also denied her remuneration for her alleged role in granting "out of turn loans worth Rs 3250 crore to Videocon Group which benefitted her husband Deepak Kochhar".

The bank had given a composite reply to the court on all the objections raised by Kochhar stating that Section 35B of the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, under which she is seeking nullification of the termination of her services, is a “regulatory provision”. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had also said that its approval to the termination was within its jurisdiction and was given after considering the request of Kochhar’s former employer.

ALSO READ: ICICI Bank takes Chanda Kochhar to Bombay HC, demands return of bonuses

The bank has raised the objection that Kochhar’s writ petition is not maintainable, that “it is a private banking company and the writ petition seeks to contest what are purely private contractual terms”. Hence, the bank argued that Kochhar’s writ petition did not have a legal basis.

Earlier in January, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached assets and cash belonging to the Kochhar duo, which included her South Mumbai apartment at CCI Chambers, valued at Rs 3.5 crore (book value) along with assets of projects of Deepak Kochhar’s Nupower Renewables and its subsidiaries such as Wind Farms, Echanda Urja Private worth Rs 74 crore (book value). Besides, a cash amount Rs 10.5 lakh, which the ED had seized during the search operation from the premises of Pacific Capital Services, another company of Deepak Kochhar.

Adlabs Imagica gets relief from Bombay HC over tax benefits under GST

The issue relates to subsuming of entertainment tax into GST which deprived the company of the entertainment tax incentives it was promised by the state government and the corporation.

Adlabs Imagica — which has theme and water parks in Maharashtra and is owned by Adlabs Entertainment — got relief from the Bombay High Court on Friday in a case relating to denial of entertainment tax incentives post GST.

Abhishek Rastogi, the petitioner’s counsel, said the court ordered that a committee be formed with representatives from the Maharashtra government and the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, and that the committee come out with a report on extending entertainment tax benefits to the company.

The committee will determine the methodology for extending the benefits to Adlabs Imagica

The issue relates to subsuming of entertainment tax into the goods and services tax (GST) which deprived the company of the entertainment tax incentives it was promised by the state government and the corporation.

Entertainment tax collected from visitors used to be transferred to the company to incentivise it for its investments under the older tax regime in accordance with the tourism policy of the state, 2006. The two parks were promised Rs 8 billion of incentives till 2023-2025.

Hence, the company moved the court, saying it should continue to get the benefits under the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel allows a party to recover the benefit of a promise made even if a legal contract does not exist.

Similar cases are also being litigated in other states. Courts in Allahabad and Jodhpur have also given relief to petitioners, Rastogi said.

Business Standard