- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court directs the Centre on e-commerce websites
Delhi High Court directs the Centre on e-commerce websites
A study revealed that only 23 were in compliance and 85 e-commerce websites were not complying with the Legal Metrology Rules
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to come up with a mechanism to conduct regular checks on e-commerce websites to ensure they comply with Indian laws.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla ordered the Government of India to see whether the products sold on the e-commerce sites had details regarding the packaging, and maximum retail price (MRP) and the country of origin.
The court was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ajay Kumar Singh through Advocates Rajesh K Pandit and Ankur Gosain. It sought directions to the Centre to ensure that websites comply with the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011.
Appearing for the Centre, the counsel said that an inquiry was conducted and a sample analysis had been done by the Quality Council of India (QCI). It revealed that while 23 were complying, 85 e-commerce websites were not complying with the Legal Metrology Rules.
The counsel stated that notices had been issued to 152 companies for non-declaration of the country of origin of products sold on their websites. Out of those, 33 had compounded and 9 had either given a declaration or closed their business. He added that the companies could be booked for a criminal offence for non-compliance.
The bench, however, observed that the government had not yet put in place a mechanism to conduct regular and periodic checks on e-commerce websites. It, thus, gave six weeks to the Centre to file its status report on the same.