MUKESH MAHESHWARI JOURNALIST Vs. DAINIK BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has move an application under Sec.13 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) inter alia for revocation of the order massed by this Commission on 13th October 1997. Thereby this Commission has directed the respondent to suspend its prize scheme launched by way of sales promotion of its daily "dainik Bhaskar" (Indore Edition ).

(2.) A few facts giving rise to this application deserve to be narrated. The respondent appears to have launched a prize scheme for increasing circulation of its newspaper published from Indore. The prize scheme was for a period from July, 1997 to October, 1997. Under the prize scheme, a coupon would appear on any day in its newspaper with two questions to be answered and a slogan to be coined for the purpose of participation in the prize scheme. Besides, the prize scheme envisaged publication of ten such coupons during the period from July, 1997 to October, 1997. The applicant/complainant has approached this Commission under Sec.36b of the MRTP Act charging the respondent therein with adoption of unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36 (A) (3) thereof on the ground that the aforesaid prize scheme would amount to unfair trade practice for the purposes thereof. The applicant/complainant has also moved one application under Sec.12a thereof for an interim relief in the nature of the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from continuing the aforesaid prize scheme and. for directing the respondent forthwith to discontinue the same. By an order passed by this Commission on 13th October, 1997, an interim relief as prayed for came to be granted. The application for interim relief has not come to be disposed of so far in view of the intervening contempt proceeding taken out by and on behalf of the applicant/complainant. The contempt proceeding has come to be disposed of by an order passed by this Commission on 25th August, 1998. The respondent has now moved this application under Sec.13 (2) of the MRTP Act inter alia for revocation of the aforesaid order passed on 13th October, 1997.

(3.) It is not possible for me to accede to request for time made by learned Advocate Mr. Rao for the applicant/complainant for filing his reply to the present application, because a copy of the application was served to the applicant/ complainant through his Advocate way back on 2nd November, 1998 and the reply could have been filed in time. It may be noted that learned Advocate Mr. Rao for the applicant/complainant informs me that he has already filed his reply to the present application. No such reply is found on the record of this case. Learned Counsel Mr. Chitale for the respondent informs me that neither the respondent nor its Advocate has received a copy of the so-called reply filed by and on behalf of the applicant/complainant to the present application. Learned Advocate Mr. Rao for the applicant/complainant informs me that the reply was filed thinking that the present application was for review of the order passed by this Commission on 13th October, 1997. I do not think that the prayer could have given any indication that the application was an application for review of the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 13th October, 1997. The prayer contained in the present application is quite clear for amendment or revocation of the aforesaid order passed on 13th October, 1997. It may be noted that ordinarily request for adjournment might not have been turned down, but for the fact that the respondent is reported to have been accused of betraying the confidence and faith of its readers with respect to the prize scheme. Learned Counsel Mr. Chitale for the respondent has brought to my notice a pamphlet in that regard circulated presumably by the competitor or rival. Besides, according to learned Counsel Mr. Chitale for the respondent, the rival newspaper has floated such scheme for raising its circulation and, by virtue of the aforesaid order passed on 13th October, 1997, the respondent is denied and deprived of such benefit. Be that as it may, since the order passed by this Commission on 13th October, 1997 appears to be operating harshly against the respondent, it would be in the fitness of things to hear the present application after turning down request for adjournment made by learned Advocate. Mr. Rao for the applicant/complainant.