Why Is Vadilal’s Family Feud Back In Court After Three Decades? Bombay HC’s Order Changes Everything

Few Indian consumer brands have remained as enduring as Vadilal. Yet behind one of the country’s best-known ice cream names lies a family dispute that has lasted for more than three decades.

The latest chapter ended with the Bombay High Court granting interim protection to the Mumbai branch of the Gandhi family, allowing it to continue using the Vadilal brand in key markets while arbitration determines the parties’ long-term rights.

Three-Decade Dispute Resurfaces

The latest legal battle traces its roots to a family settlement signed in March 1993 after differences emerged within the Gandhi family, which controls the Vadilal business. Under that arrangement, the Mumbai branch, led by Shailesh R.

Gandhi through Vadilal Dairy International Ltd., claims it received permanent rights to manufacture, sell and distribute ice creams and juices under the Vadilal brand across Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and the then undivided Andhra Pradesh, including present-day Telangana.

The dispute resurfaced after the Ahmedabad branch issued a communication on May 26, 2026, seeking to terminate the registered user agreement and the irrevocable power of attorney executed in favour of the Mumbai group.

The Mumbai branch approached the Bombay High Court seeking interim protection while arbitration proceedings commence.

Court Preserves Status Quo

Justice Amit Borkar granted interim relief in favour of the Mumbai branch, restraining the Ahmedabad faction from interfering with its continued use of the Vadilal brand in the territories covered by the 1993 settlement.

The court also restrained the Ahmedabad branch from creating third-party rights over the Mumbai group’s claimed territorial rights until the arbitration process progresses.

In its order, the court observed that the Mumbai group’s claim appeared, at least at this preliminary stage, to arise from the family settlement rather than a revocable commercial licence. It further noted that refusing interim protection could cause irreversible commercial harm if the arbitral tribunal later upholds the Mumbai branch’s rights.

The court said the Mumbai entity could otherwise be forced to withdraw products from the market, redesign packaging, alter dealership and distribution networks, and rebuild consumer recognition developed over decades. It also observed that competitors could occupy valuable retail shelf space during that period, causing losses that may not be easily reversible.

Competing Claims Continue

The Ahmedabad branch opposed the plea, arguing that repeated microbiological testing had revealed contamination in products manufactured by the Mumbai entity.

It contended that, as owner of the trademark through Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd., it had a responsibility to protect the brand’s goodwill and consumer confidence by enforcing quality-control obligations.

While acknowledging that these concerns deserved consideration, the High Court clarified that it was not deciding the merits of the allegations. Instead, it held that preserving the existing commercial arrangement until arbitration would minimise the risk of irreversible prejudice to either side.

The court’s observations should therefore not be interpreted as a final determination of trademark ownership or quality-related claims.

Governance Lessons Beyond Court

The Vadilal dispute reflects a broader challenge faced by many Indian family-owned enterprises, where decades-old succession arrangements continue to shape modern business operations.

Even successful consumer brands can face prolonged uncertainty when governance structures, ownership rights and commercial agreements evolve separately over time. For investors and business observers, the case underscores the importance of clearly defined succession planning, transparent governance and legally robust brand ownership structures.

While the interim order ensures business continuity for the Mumbai branch in its traditional markets, the larger questions surrounding trademark rights and the interpretation of the 1993 family settlement remain unresolved. Those issues will now be decided through arbitration, making the outcome significant not only for the Gandhi family but also for one of India’s oldest and most recognisable food brands.