COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD . versus M.R.T.P. COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 20-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD . 
A 
r. 
M.R.T.P. COMMISSION AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJI AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Section 36A-
Unfair trade practices-Principles-Invoking of-Held, since no causation of 
loss or inju1y to the consun1er, principles of unfair trade practices could not c 
be invoked-No anomaly or absurdity in literal meaning of the provision-
Must be assigned its plain meaning-'Mischief Rule' to be resorted to-
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Appellant announced a contest apparently for the purpose of 
educating the families for inculcating good habit of taking care of dental D 
health but the object of the contest .in the advertisement seems to be of 
giving publicity and to increase sale of its product. On a complaint to the 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, Full Bench of 
the Commission, vide impugned Judgment, held the advertisement issued 
for the contest to be an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 
36A of the M.R.T.P. Act. Hence this appeal. 
E 
The question which arose in these appeals was regarding 
interpretation of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade 
Practices, Act, 1969. 
It was contended for the appellant that since no loss or injury was F 
~ 
caused to the consumer by the advertisement announcing the contest,· 
Commission misread and misrepresented the provision of Section 
36A(3)(b) of the M.R.T.P. Act in arriving at the decision. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: l.l. Causation of loss or injury is a sine qua non for invoking 
• 
the principles of Section 36A of the M.R.T.P. Act. It is a well settled 
principle of law that a literal meaning should be assigned to a statute unless 
the same leads to anomaly or absurdity. The terminology used in the 
' 
provisions is absolutely clear and unambiguous. In terms of the provisions H 
~ 
219 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A of law not only a trade practice is resorted to for the purpose of promoting 
sale or use or supply of any goods or services, as specified therein but 
thereby loss or injury to the consumers of such goods or services must be 
caused. The word 'thereby' must be assigned its plain meaning for 
interpretation of the provision of law. The Commission committed a 
B manifest error in holding that actual loss or injury is not an essential 
ingredient of the unfair trade practice. 1225-B-EI 
1.2. An amendment in the Act has been made whereby the words 
"causing loss or injury to the consumer" were omitted in the Act, which 
also goes to show the law as it stood thence, 'loss or injury to the consumer' 
C was a pre-requisite for attracting the provisions of Section 35A(3)(b) of 
the Act. In interpreting the said provision of law, the "Mischief Rule" 
should be resorted to. (225-F, G] 
D 
E 
H.M.M Ltd. v. Director General, Monopolies & Restrictive Trade 
Practices Commission, (1998) 6 SCC 485, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 891 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.1991 of the MRTP. 
Commission New Delhi in U.T.P.E. No. 41 of 1984. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 2446/93 and 2965 of 1989. 
Ashok H. Desai, R. Narain, Aditya Narain and Rajan Narain, for the 
F Appellant. 
Ms. Shashi Kiran, S.N. Terdol and P. Parmeswaran, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Interpretation of Section 36A of the Monopolies and 
G Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 ('the M.R. T.P. Act') is in question in 
this batch of appeals which arise out of the judgments and orders passed by 
the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ('the 
Commission'), New Delhi whereby and where-under advertisements issued 
by the appellant herein announcing a contest was held to be an unfair trade 
H practice within the meaning thereof. 
; 
COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. v. M.R.T.P. COMMISSION [SINHA. J.J22 J 
The fact of the matter is being noted from Civil Appeal No.891of1993 A 
Colgate Palmolive {India) ltd. v. Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices 
Co11unission and Ors. 
The appellant had inserted an advertisement in several newspapers in 
September, 1984 announcing a contest known as "Colgate Trigard Family 
Good Habits Contest". 'Trigard' is the name of tooth-brush manufactured by B 
the appellant. By reason of the said advertisement, a contest apparently for 
the purpose of educating the families for inculcating good habit of taking

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