Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1574 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTRetail package or not - allegation is that the address of the manufacturer or packer and MRP have not been marked on such packages as required under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Package Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Whether the requirement of Rule 6 is to be complied with by a manufacturer who sells his packaged goods to an industrial consumer through a stockiest? - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 6 of the Rules which prescribes the declaration to be made on every package makes it clear that one of the requirement, which a package should contain is common generic names of the commodity contained in the package, as contained in Rule 6(1)(b) - In rule 2-A, industrial consumer or the institutional consumer are purchasing the packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer. In the case of retail package, the manufacturer of goods meant for industrial use may not be able to supply the goods directly. Therefore, they may take the assistance of a stockiest. If the customers are spread over the country and if the manufacturing unit is in one part of the country and they want to concentrate on manufacturing activity, they may not have resource or ability to arrange for the sale of their product through out the country. In these circumstances, it is quite but natural that they need middle men or stockiest as distributors, through whom they would distribute their product or sell their products to an industrial or institutional user. In such an event, that packaged commodity cannot be construed as a retail package - After deleting Rule 34(a), in the very definition of ‘retail package’, the legislature while defining the meaning of ‘ultimate consumer’ to whom a retail package is meant, excluded institutional or industrial consumer. Thus, it is clear that the protection under this Act is confined only to individuals and persons who are eking out livelihood by self employment and not to institutional and industrial consumers or consumers who purchase goods in large quantities. In the present case, respondent No.1 is a manufacturer of industrial product. On the packet, it is expressly stated that it is meant for industrial use. The product which is manufactured by them is high end industrial welding products, such as electrodes, brazing rods, powders and fluxes. Respondent No.2 is their selling agent and selling these products through a network of stockiest spread all over India, 90% of the sales are generated through the involvement of core team of sales/service engineers of respondent No.2 who are trained in specialized Eutectic Castolin Welding Process - The learned single Judge after considering the entire material on record has rightly held that the impugned notices issued by appellant No.2 are one without authority, illegal and contrary to the express provision contained in the enactment, cannot be sustained and rightly quashed the notices. Appeal dismissed.
|