COLGATE PAMOLIVE INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an advertisement published by the first petitioner in the Hindustan Times dated 15/06/1986 announcing the organisation of a contest known as "The Colgate Healthy Teeth Happy Home Contest", the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade,Practices Commission (MRTP) on 16/10/1986 issued a notice of enquiry under Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974 (for short 'the Regulations') to the petitioner calling upon it to comply with the requirements of Regulations 11, 57, 65, 67 and 84A in case it wished to be heard in the proceedings. The notice also stated to the effect that the petitioner had prima facie indulged in an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36A(3)(b) of the the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the MRTP Act') thereby causing loss or injury to the consumer and affecting competition. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid notice filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) It is not disputed that apart from the bald statement contained in the notice that the first petitioner indulged in an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36A(3)(b) of the MRTP Act resulting in loss or injury to the consumers, there was, however, no reference to any evidence in support thereof indicating such a loss or injury to the consumers. The notice was not accompanied by any material substantiating the allegation.

(3.) At this stage, it will be convenient to set out section 36A of the MRTP Act, as it stood at the relevant time, to the- extent it has a bearing on the issue in question -