TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In interpreting the said provision, the ‘Mischief Rule’ should be resorted to. For the view, we have taken, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained, which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2965 OF 1989 AND 891, 2446 OF 1993 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2002 - CHIEF JUSTICE S.B SINHA, J. Ashok H. Desai, R. Narain, Aditya Narain and Rajan Narain for the Appellant. Ms. Shashi Kiran, S.N. Terdol and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. - Interpretation of section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 ( the M.R.T.P. Act ) is in question in this batch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so printed. The contestant was required to tick mark the correct answer. By way of illustration the appellant had already ticked the correct alternative in the case of first question which was as follows: "Brush in the morning; ( a )only in the morning; ( b )in the morning and after every meal" In the form alternative ( b ) had been ticked. There were similar three questions with alternative answers. Anyone with an ordinary knowledge of dental health could tick mark the correct answer to those questions. But this was not enough. In addition to answering the questions as mentioned above, each contestant had to write a sentence not exceeding ten words describing as to why the contestant s family used Colgate Trigard Tooth-brush. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid complaint and preliminary investigation report submitted by the Addl. Director General, it appears to the Commission that the Respondent is indulging in the Trade Practice of conducting a contest (Colgate Trigard Family Good Habits Contest) for the purpose of promoting the sale of its product (Tooth Brushes) and also for the purpose of indirectly promoting its business interest: AND WHEREAS it appears to the Commission that such trade practice is an unfair trade practice causing injury and loss to the consumers (of tooth brushes); AND WHEREAS it appears that the said contest is arbitrary in nature and eliminates competition among the manufacturers of tooth brushes and thus amounts to a restrictive trade practice." The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 36A of the Act are vehicles of loss or injury." It was further held : "...The contest ceases to be innocent if it is held for the purpose of promoting the sale or the business interests of the organiser of that contest. Some of the features of the contest under examination may be noted. The contest induces the consumer to buy minimum two tooth brushes to enable him to participate in the contest. If he wants to send more entries he is naturally required to purchase proportionately greater number of tooth brushes. There is no ceiling on the number of entries to be sent by the contestant. An obnoxious feature of this contest is about the prizes which were awarded to the persons whose entries were received early in the week. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following practices and thereby causes loss or injury to the consumers of such goods or services, whether by eliminating or restricting competition or otherwise, namely : ****** 3( b ) the conduct of any contest, lottery, game of chance or skill, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use or supply of any product or any business interest;" A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly indicate that the following five ingredients are necessary to constitute an unfair trade practice : 1.There must be a trade practice [within the meaning of section 2( a ) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act]; 2.The trade practice must be employed for the purpose of promoting the sale, us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
