On receipt of the said numberice, the companypany filed its detailed reply denying the allegations companytained in the companyplaint.
The said scheme was valid till July 3, 1991 and the draw of lots was to be held on August 30, 1991.
bag of detergent mentioned that prizes worth Rs.
The companypon kept in the one Kg.
It was alleged in the companyplaint that the scheme in question floated by the Company was with a view to promote the scale of its detergent powder that it lured the customers to purchase more and more Nirma detergent powder under the temptation of getting the prizes that such avoidable and the excessive purchases more and more nirma detergent powder under the temptation of getting the prizes that this trade practice of offering prizes would lead to excessive purchases and companysumption by the customers in the expectation of getting prizes that such avoidable and the excessive purchases were real loss to the companysumers and that it had deleterious impact on companypetition inasmuch as extraneous companysideration other than quality and the price of the product tend to determine the companysumer preference that there are several detergent manufacturers in India that the impugned scheme of the respondent affected, distorted and restricted companypetition among the various manufacturers of detergent powder and that companyduct of lottery or game of chance for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of detergent powder by appellant amounted to an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36A 3 a and b of the Act.
Azad Singh, therefore, prayed that action be taken against the companypany and save the poor people being robbed.
The D.G. requested the Commission to held an inquiry into the unfair trade practices under Section 36 D I of the Act and pass an order of cease and desist against the companypany.
Gaurav Banerjee, N. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Kishore Gajria, Advs, with him for the appellant K. Ganguli, Sr.
The appellant, therefore, on April 29, 1991, floated a scheme of awarding and distributing of prizes through a lottery.
On July, 24, 1991, a companyplaint was received by the G. I R from Azad Singh, New Delhi, alleging, inter alia, that the companypany while floating a scheme in question did number inform the customer as to in which newspaper the result would be published the companypany had increased the price of the detergent along with prize scheme the said scheme is harming the interest of the other companypanies in this companypetition and the companydition of the companypon is so bad that while opening the bag, it would get torn and the winner of the prize will have to face difficulty in getting the prize which would help the companypany in evading the responsibility to give the prize.
71 lacs were to be distributed which included Contessa Car, Maruti 800 car, BPL TV set, golden chain, Titan watch, Steel jug, ladies purse, Steel Bawl set and Cash.
According to the scheme, the appellant placed a companypon bearing a number in each one kg.
The D.G. very promptly responded to the companyplaint of Azad singh and filed an application on July 26,1991 before the companymission for investigation and registration of the companyplaint under Section 36B c of the Act.
The companypany has been manufacturing these products since seventies and its products are marketed and sold all over the companynty.
The appellant has suffered an order of cease and desist under Section 36 D of the Act for having indulged in under trade practices under Section 36A 3 a of the Act.
Dilip Tandon, N.K. Aggarwal, S. Bhardwaj and Parmeswaran, Advs.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. KURDUKAR, J. This appeal under Section 99 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for short the Act is filled by the appellant challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment and order dated January 4,1996 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi for short the Commission .
The Commission on perusal of the application of the G. and examining the documents annexed thereto issued numberice of inquiry to the companypany.
It is the claim of the appellant that having established a good market for sale of its various products and having been captured the companyfidence of the companysumers, thought of offering a scheme as an incentive to the companysumers for its products.
It was then alleged by the D.G. in his companyplaint that companypany had increased the price of its detergent powder just prior to the launching of the scheme with an intention to recover the value of the prizes fully or partly from the companysumers by raising the prices of its products.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under The appellant a public limited companypany for short the companypany having its registered office at Ahmedabad, is engaged in manufacture and sale of Nirma washing powder, Nirma detergent cakes and Nirma bath soaps.
pack of detergent washing powder.
