9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the company indulged in unfair trade practices under Section 36A(3)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 2. Whether the increase in the price of detergent was to cover the prize money under the scheme. 3. Whether the complaint and evidence were sufficient to prove the charges against the company. Detailed Analysis: 1. Unfair Trade Practices under Section 36A(3)(a): The primary issue was whether the company's scheme of offering prizes through a lottery constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(a) of the Act. The Commission initially found that while the company did not breach Section 36A(3)(b), it did violate Section 36A(3)(a). The relevant provision states that an unfair trade practice includes "the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not providing them as offered or creating the impression that something is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole." The appellant contended that the scheme was an incentive for consumer loyalty and not an unfair trade practice. The Commission, however, inferred that the prize money was covered by the increased price of the detergent, which was seen as creating an impression of a free offer when it was not. 2. Increase in Price to Cover Prize Money: The company argued that the price increase was due to the rise in raw material costs and not to cover the prize money. The Commission did not seek further evidence to substantiate this claim, relying solely on the complaint by the Director General (D.G.). The appellant claimed that audited balance sheets and other financial documents could prove that the price increase was unrelated to the prize scheme. The court found that the Commission should have given the company an opportunity to present this evidence. 3. Sufficiency of Complaint and Evidence: The D.G.'s complaint was based on a letter from Azad Singh, which alleged that the company had increased the price of its detergent to cover the prize money. The court noted that there was no other material evidence before the Commission to support the charge of unfair trade practice. The court emphasized that the words "or otherwise" in Section 36A imply that not only actual loss or injury but also the likelihood of such must be proven with cogent material. The court concluded that the Commission's inference of an unfair trade practice was unsustainable due to the lack of sufficient evidence. The matter was remitted back to the Commission to allow both parties to present further evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the Commission's order under Section 36D, which held that the company had committed an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(a). The case was remitted back to the Commission for fresh consideration, allowing the company to present additional evidence to substantiate its claims. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
