M/S INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD. versus H.D. SHOURIE

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 03-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
H.D. SHOURIE 
AUGUST 3, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
,, 
The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 
1977: 
.. 
Rules 6(1)(/) and 6(2)-Film rolls manufactured abroad but distributed c 
in India-Sale price not printed on film rolls-Held, Dealer to print sale 
price on packaged roll of film-Rule 6(1) applicable to the manufacturer as 
well as distributor or retailer-Provisions of Rule 6(2) with regard to dealer 
are in addition to obligations of dealer under Rule 6(1). 
A complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Consumer D 
Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi in the interest of the general public. It was 
alleged that the appellant was selling film rolls as a representative of Kodak, 
without printing the price on the packages of the films. It was contended that 
it was mandatory under Section 6 (1) (t) of the Standards of Weights and 
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to print on every package E 
the price of the package. 
The District Forum held that the appellant had violated the Rules and, 
accordingly, directed the appellant to display the sale price of the film on the 
package. In appeal, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District F 
Forum and gave further directions. 
The National Commission dismissed the rev1S1on petition while 
clarifying that if cartons containing a large number of film rolls are sold 
~y 
1the appellant on wholesale basis, it would be sufficient compliance if he 
affixes on each carton a sticker indicating the price at which each film roll G 
is to be sold in retail. It further clarified that if retail sales are effected from 
the appellant's outlet, each packet containing a single roll of film should 
bear the price sticker. 
>. 
ln appeal before this Court it was contended by the appellant that there 
..;.. 
9 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A was no statutory mandate to publish/print the price of film rolls being 
imported and sold in India by a distributor. It was submitted that Ruic 6(1) 
of the Rules is applicable to the manufacturers alone and not to the dealers; 
that Rule 6(2) of the Rules alone was applicable since the films were being 
sold by the distributor and not by the manufacturer; the Rule stood amended 
B at the relevant time and excluded the dealer from affixing the price on the 
package of the film roll; and that the only requirement of law for a dealer 
was to display at its premises of retail business the rates of local taxes 
leviable, as provided in Rule 6(2). 
c 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Neither the manufacturer nor the distributor or retailer can 
escape the liability of complying with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Standards 
of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The stress 
of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules is upon the package and not upon the 
person manufacturing or selling the package. A dealer/distributor also has 
D to comply with the provisions of Rule 6(1). (16-B-D-E] 
E 
2.1. The provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules are in 
addition to the obligations cast upon the manufacturer and dealer under sub-
rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules. [16-B-C) 
2.2. It cannot be said that after the amendment of Rule 6(2) of the Rules 
on 8.8.86 there is no obligation on the dealers to display the price. By the 
amendment, only the superfluous words in Sub-rule (2) have been deleted 
while recasting and combining sub-rules (2) and (3). The dealers are, 
therefore, obliged to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of 
F the Rules, notwithstanding the confusion, if any, conceived by them under 
Rule 6(2) prior to its amendment. [16-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 53 I 0 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 7 .90 of the National Consumer 
G Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 26 of 
1990. 
H 
R.F. Nariman, Suresh Vohra and Bharat Deepak for Mis. Rajinder Narain 
& Co., for the Appellant. 
Ms. Neeru Vaid and S. Muralidhar for the Respondent. 
INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD. v. H.D. SHOURIE [SETHI, J.] 
11 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
SETHI, J. Alleging that the appellant herein was selling the films as a 
representative of Kodak without price being printed on the packages containing 
films, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Forum, Delhi (hereina

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