COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. versus HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 18-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
HINDU ST AN LEVER LTD. 
AUGUST 18, 1999 
B 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: 
Section 12A (as amended by MRTP Amendment Act, 1984): 
c 
Grant of temporary injunction by the Commission-Scope of -In a 
complaint being lodged by trader in respect of unfair trade practice-Held, 
if Commission comes to a finding that there is likelihood of deception to the 
public, then and in that event only, the question of grant of injunction would 
arise-To appreciate the powers under Section 12A and to read the same in 
D its proper perspective, Regulations 76 and 77(2) ought also to be noticed-
Regulation 76 provides that such application ought to be supported by an 
affidavit stating the circumstances under which the trade practices can be 
ascribed to be prejudicial to the interest of the public, consumer etc.-
Whereas Regulation 77(2) provides a safeguard that before making an order, 
. E the Commission may direct an investigation by the DG-lnvestigation and to 
submit a report to it, and upon consideration thereof, an appropriate order 
may be passed by the Commission-Section 36-A-MRTP Regulations 1991, 
Regulations 76 and 77(2). 
Grant of temporary injunction-Commission's power under-Held, 
. F somewhat akin to that of the Civil Court under Rules 2A to 5 of Order XXXIX 
of the Code of Civil Procedure-A/so held the jurisdiction of Commission is 
purely discretionary in nature though ordered only on the exigencies of the 
situation and not as a matter of course in accordance with known principles 
of law-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rules 2A to 5-Grant of 
temporary injunction-Delay/latches in approaching the Commission-Effect 
G of-Held, a relevant factor for grant or refusal to grant such injwiction and 
such delay cannot be ignored. 
Section 36-A-unfair trade practice-Trade advertisement-Simple 
commendation of the quality of goods by the seller, unless intended to be a 
H warranty, would not amount to unfair trade practice-Extent of latitude 
560 
~-
I 
; 
COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. v. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. 
561 
allowed in an advertisement. 
A 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: 
Order 39-/njunction--Object of-Held, to protect the plaintiff against 
the injury by reason of violation of his right and relief by way of interlocutory 
injunction granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the B 
period before the uncertainty could be resolved 
Order 39-:Temporary Injunction-Grant of-Advertisement issued by 
appellant claiming that Colgate Dental Cream acts as germs fighter, fights 
tooth decay and stop bad breath and hence provides a safety ring around 
family as "Suraksha Chakra"-Respondent made a complaint to the C · 
Commission that the claims of the appellant was highly misleading qua the 
consumers and trade-No allegation in the complaint against the term 
"Suraksha Chakra", not notice of inquiry containing any reference that this 
being unfair trade practice-Held, in the absence of any evidence regarding 
the basic a/legation of germs fighting, tooth decay. and bad breath-No D 
prima facie case made out warranting issue of temporary injunction against 
use of words "Suraksha Chakra" against the appellant-
Maxims- "Simplex commendatio non obligate-Meaning of 
Appellant started its advertisement campaign for 'Colgate Dental Cream' E 
using the phrase "Stop bad breath" and "Fight tooth decay" from 1960. The 
user of the words "Suraksha Chakra" commenced however, from 1985. In 
March 1997, the respondent complained to the Advertising Standard Council 
of India (ASCI) against Appellant's advertisement in respect of Colgate 
Dental Cream. The Consumer Complaint Council of ASCI scrutinised the 
appellant's advertisement in detail and came to a finding that the same does F 
not in any way be termed to be unfair or deceptive. Significantly, however, 
though there was a provision for review, respondent did not choose to proceed 
with the matter and allowed the matter to be set at rest. 
On October 15, 1997, appellant filed a complaint before the MRTP G 
Commission against respondent by reason of the respondent's advertisement 
wherein it was stated that the respondents' product "New Peposodent" had 
102% more germs fighting capability as compared to the 'leading toothpaste'. 
According to the appellant this 'leading toothpaste' could not but referred 
to 'Colgate Toothpaste' and as such the advertisement was di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.