9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 76 of 1985 passed under s. 36-D(1) of the Act forbidding the appellant Company from issuing certain type of advertisement as indicated in the order. 2. The Commission issued a show cause notice under s. 36-B of the Act to the appellant Company informing it that a proceeding had been instituted for making an inquiry whether the Company was indulging in certain unfair trade practices prejudicial to public interest within the meaning of s. 36-A. A copy of the notice has been attached to the petition of appeal as Annexure 'C', wherein it was alleged that, (i) although the Company was manufacturing 'Novino' batteries in collaboration with M/s Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd, and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is making batteries in collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan , and further whether the act, complained of, will be covered by the provisions of s. 36-B and 36~D of the Act authorising the respondent Commission to make an enquiry and issue appropriate directions. The expression unfair trade practice has been defined in s. 36-A as a trade practice which adopts any or more of the practices enumerated in the section. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the respondent, and the judgment under appeal also holds, that the case is covered by clauses (i) and (v) of s. 36-A(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of s. 36-A is reproduced below: 36A Definition of unfair trade practice. In this part, unless the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... research to discover how far the National Panasonic Batteries of Japan and the Novino Batteries manufactured by the respondent company vary in or conform to quality, benefits and durability and to what extent the use of the names Panasonic and National to signify collaboration has been confusing for the customer m his choice of Novino Battery. Yet I do feel that bearing in mind the Indian conditions the use of National and Panasonic to signify collaboration will have a misleading effect on the minds of the common class of customers, particularly when Novino Battery is projected in the setting of advertisement Ex. A-1/a side by side the National. Panasonic and Technics Batteries. 5. The show cause notice served on the appellant does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details about their products, they come as great help to the man in the street. Unfortunately, some of the advertisements issued for this purpose make exaggerated and sometime baseless representations about the quality, standard and performance, with an object of attracting purchasers. It was, therefore, considered necessary to have statutory regulations insisting that, while advertising, the seller must speak the truth. Accordingly sections 36-A to 36-E in part B were inserted in Chapter V of the Act by an amendment in 1984. 7. However, the question in controversy has to be answered by construing the relevant provisions of the Act. The definition of unfair trade practice in s. 36-A mentioned above is not inclusive or flexible, but sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be judged is to see whether the discrepancy between the fact as represented and the actual fact is such as would be considered material by a reasonable representee. Another way of stating the rule is to say that substantial falsity is, on the one hand, necessary, and, on the other, adequate, to establish a misrepresentation and that 'where the entire representation is a faithful picture or transcript of the essential facts, no falsity is established, even though there may have been any number of inaccuracies in unimportant details. Conversely, if the general impression conveyed is false, the most punctilious and scrupulous accuracy in immaterial minutiae will not render the representation true. Let us examine the relevant facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement mentioned earlier. As the appellant Company is only getting technical knowledge and assistance under the agreement, it is not permissible to claim 'Novino' batteries as the product of joint venture. The argument was rightly repelled on behalf of the appellant on the ground that this aspect cannot be examined in the present case in view of the limited scope of the charges as mentioned in the show cause notice quoted above. If so advised, the Commission will have to hold a fresh inquiry after issuing another show cause notice if it desires to pursue this aspect. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised several other points in support of the appeal, one of them being that from the facts and circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
