Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1989 (5) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1989 (5) TMI 321 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved:
The judgment involves an appeal under section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 against a decision of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission regarding unfair trade practices in advertisements.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Alleged Misleading Advertisement
The Commission issued a show cause notice under section 36-B of the Act, alleging that the appellant Company falsely represented collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan in manufacturing 'Novino' batteries, causing loss to consumers. The appellant denied the allegations, stating collaboration with Mitsushita Electric Industrial Ltd. and approval by the Government of India. The Commission upheld the order despite the appellant's explanation.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Unfair Trade Practice
The judgment analyzed whether the appellant's advertisement claiming collaboration with National Panasonic fell under sections 36-B and 36-D of the Act. The definition of 'unfair trade practice' under section 36-A was crucial, focusing on false representations causing consumer loss. The Commission found the advertisement misleading, emphasizing the impact on consumer perception.

Issue 3: Legal Framework and Consumer Protection
The Act aimed to regulate unfair trade practices, including false advertising, to protect consumers. The judgment highlighted the importance of truthful advertising to ensure consumer welfare. The statutory amendments in 1984 introduced sections 36-A to 36-E to address deceptive marketing strategies and promote honesty in business-consumer relationships.

Conclusion:
The Court ruled that the appellant's advertisement, while inaccurately describing the collaboration, did not constitute an unfair trade practice under section 36-A. It suggested the appellant provide accurate information in future ads. The judgment set aside the Commission's decision, allowing the appeal without costs. The Court emphasized the need for truthful advertising to safeguard consumer interests.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates