LexHINDUSTAN CIBA GEIGY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
HINDUSTAN CIBA GEIGY
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 20, 2002
B
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ., H.K. SEMA AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
Interpretation of Statutes:
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade. Practices Act, 1969: Section 36A-
C Unfair Trade Practices-Principles-Invoking of-Held, practices, as a result
of which actual loss or injury caused to the consumer by eliminating or
restricting competition-These conditions must be read conjunctively for
invoking the provisions of law.
D
The question which arose in the appeal was whether under Section
36A of the Act, (as it stood then.), causation of loss or injury to the
consumer of goods or service is a sine qua non for initiation of a proceeding
thereunder.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: A bar~ perusal of the provisions under Section 36-A of the
M.R.T.P. Act would clearly go to show that an unfair trade practice would
mean a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use
or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services, adopts one or
more of the practices specified therein adopted and as a result thereof loss
F or injury has been caused to the consumers of such goods or services, either
by eliminating or restricting competition 'or otherwise. It would
fui:-thermore clearly go to show that the two conditions precedent
mentione!J therein are required to be read conjunctively and not
disjunctively. The provision leaves no manner of doubt that an inquiry
can be initiated against the notice not only when it adopts or one or more
G practices specified therein but also thereby it must cause loss or injury to
the consumers. The Commission committed a manifest error in holding
that the actual loss or injury need not be caused to the consumers.
(229-8-EJ
H
HMM Ltd. v. Director General, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
226
••
HINDUSTAN CIBA GEIGY v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA. J.}
227
Practices Commission, [1998[ 6 SCC 485, relied on.
Colgate Pab110/ive (India) ltd. v. A1.R. T.P.
(~0111111ission and Ors., in
u:r.P.E. No.41 of 1984 decided on 19th June, 1991, overruled.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 3224 of
A
1993.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.1993 of the MRTP Commission.
New Delhi in U.T.P.E. No. 3 I of 1987.
R. Narain, for Mis. J.B.D. & Co. for the Appellant.
c
N.N. Goswami, C.K. Sµcharita and P. Parmeswaran, for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal
under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 D
('the Act') is whether under Section 36A of the Act, (as it stood then), causation
of loss or injury to the consumer of goods or service is a sine qua non for
initiation of a proceeding thereunder.
One H.D. Murzello made a complaint before the Director General of
Investigation and Registration alleging unfair trade practice against the E
appellant herein as regards an advertisement issued by them which appeared
in "The Times of India" dated 16th September, 1986 to the following effect:
•
•
"Aerocol's family background: Aerocol's credibility as a wonder
wood adhesive stems from 2 facts
F
An addition to the Araldite and Aerolite family, it is a product
from Hindustran Ciba Geigy;
Already a market leader in UK, it is known for living up to its
promise."
On the said complaint. the Director General was directed to make a G
preliminary enquiry. Upon such inquiry, a report was submitted on 15th April,
1987. On the basis of the recommendations made in the said investigation
report, a Notice ofEnquirywas issued by the Commission on 30th July, 1987
against the appellant herein; the relevant portion thereof is as under :-
i:-_· r
"The respondent above mentioned is engaged in selling adhesive under
-
228
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
the trade name Aerocol. It had issued an advertisement that appeai ed
in Times of India dated 16.9.1986, making claim that the product is
manufactured by it. It has come to the notice of the Commission that
the said product is manufactured by M/s Kiran Industries. The
respondent by misrepresenting to the public that the product is
manufactured by it while it is manufactured by some other company
has caused loss and injury to the consumers and thereby indulged in
the unfair trade practice falling within the purview of Section 36A( I )(v)
of the Act.
The respondent had also claimed that its producExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.