GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD. versus AJAY KUMAR

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 01-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 937 
GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD. 
. v. 
AJAY KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2339 of 2008) 
APRIL 1, 2008 
. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO P. SATl-:IAS!VAM, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 14, 14(1)(d) and 
14(hc) - Complaint alleging unfair trade practices...: Upheld 
A 
B 
by National Commission - Directions to discontinue unfair c 
trade practices; to issue corrective advertisements; and to pay 
compensation - Challenge to - Held: A/legations were not 
supported by any material or evidence and not specifically 
pleaded - s.5(1) and (2) of 2003 Act prohibited issuance of 
any advertisement in relation to cigarettes - Power to issue 
direction regarding corrective advertisement was introduc~d D 
u/s 14 of 1986 Act, later - There was no allegation that 
complainant suffered loss and prayerfor compensation was 
also not made - Also complainant was hot entitled to file such 
complaint to represent others - Thus, directions issued not E 
sustainable and order of High Court set aside - Cigarettes 
and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and 
Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and 
Distribution) Act, 2003 - s. 5(1) and (2). 
In 1999, the appellant issued advertisement in 
F 
newspapers and. magazines for the cigarettes 
manufactured and sold under brand name 'Red & White'. 
Respondent filed 
complaint against the 
said 
advertisement alleging unfair trade practices. Both the 
District Forum as well as the State Commission held that G 
complaint was not _entertainable since suit in relation to 
the said advertisement was pending in the Civil Court. The 
respondent withdrew the suit an~ filed Revision Petition. 
The National Commission held that the slogan in the 
937 
H 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
' 
A advertisement that 'Red & White smokers are one of a 
,, 
kind', showing image of Akshay Kumar holding a cigarette 
would detract the people from the statutory warning. It 
indicated that smokers of Red & White cigarettes could 
be super actor performing all the film stunts without 
B duplicates" thus, amounted to unfair trade practices. It 
directed the appellant: (i) to discontinue unfair trade 
practices and not to publish such advertisement; (ii) to 
issue corrective advertisements; and (iii) to pay 
compensation of Rs.20,-000/- to the complainant. 
c Appellant filed a Review Petition that when direction (i) 
was given, the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products 
(Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade an~ 
Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 
had already come into force by which all advertisements 
0 in relation to cigarettes had already been prohibited; that 
direction (ii) was passed on the basis of provisions of the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was not in force at 
the time of publication of the impugned advertisement in 
the year 1999; and that direction (iii) was passed without 
any claim for compensation made in the complaint. The 
E Review Petition was dismissed without considering the 
contentions. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The direction to discontinue unfair trade 
F practices and not to publish any advertisement like the 
impugned advertisement was given without any material 
or evidence whatsoever and there was not even a 
/. 
suggestion/pleading that the advertisement was of 
Akshay Kumar or that he could perform certain stunts 
G without duplicates. There was not even an allegation that 
the statutory warning was detracted from. When such 
serious allegation which was required to be established 
was not even specifically pleaded and when nothing 
specific was indicated in the complaint, the Commission 
H should not have given the direction on pure surmises. 
GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA L Tb.· v. AJAY KUMAR 
939 
[Paras 4 and 15J [942-D, E; 945-G; 946-A, BJ 
A 
Bharat Dharma Syndicate v. Harish Chandra AIR 1937 
PC 146; The Union of India v. Pandurang Kashinath More 
AIR 1962 SC 630 - referred to. 
1.2 Section 5(1) and Section 5(2) of the Cigarettes and B 
other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement 
. 
. . 
and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, 
Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 clearly prohibited 
issuance of any advertisement in relation to cigarettes. 
Therefore, direction to issue the corrective advertise.ment c 
by the National Commission could not have been given. 
Further, the power for giving such direction was 
introduced under Secti

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