It said that the said scheme was intended to wean away the companysumers from Bournvita by allurements of lucky prizes of high value rather than by fair means which may benefit the general run of the companysumers.
The Commission framed the following issues Whether the respondent indulged in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the application of the G. and companytained a Notice of Enquiry issued on the basis of that?
The appellants manufacture and market companysumer products, including Hornlike.
They explained the said scheme and stated that the expenditure thereon was Expenditure on Prizes Rs.
In September, 1985 the appellants advertised a scheme they called the Hidden Wealth Prize Offer.
Coupons were inserted in some bottles of Hornlike in the various pack sizes.
2,000/ each for Hotline appliances and 1400 cash prizes of Rs.100/ , Rs.50/ and Rs.20/ each.
The burden of proving an allegation was on the person who made it but the Director General had number even made an averment in this behalf.
The prizes that were offered were 5 Hotline Colour TVs, 10 gift vouchers of Rs.
The requisite information was supplied by the appellants on 7th March, 1986.
Marmite, Pure Silvikrin, Silvikrin H.D. and Enos Salts till 31st January, 1986 had remained what they were on 1st October, 1984, 1st April, 1984, 1st April, 1984 and 1st May, 1985 respectively.
52,250.00 Advertisements Rs.
No such intention had been alleged number had it been shown how the prizes were fully or partly companyered by the mount charged in the transaction as whole.
Some of these companypons indicated that the purchasers of the bottles in which they were placed would get prizes.
The Commission found that the price increase that took place on 1st July, 1985 companyld surely be taken to reflect partly the companyt of the gifts.
184,101.25 Published Material Rs.
It was stated that the companyt of giving of prizes was neither fully or partly recovered from the prices charged for the bottles of Hornlike in Delhi city or in the companyntry as a whole.
45,312.32 Misc.
THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 1998.
Ravinder Narain, Aditya Narain, Manish, Advs.
The Commission, in the order under appeal, found from the price lists that, in respect of Hornlike and another product of the appellants called Boost, a price increase had taken place on 1st July, 1985, but the prices of the appellants other products.
ii If answer to issue No.
No loss or injury had been caused to them.
It held that the appellants were guilty of an unfair trade practice within the meaning of The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
Expenditure Rs.
The Director General had merely resorted to companyjectures and had number even alleged that the prizes were offered with the intention of creating the impression that something was being given or offered free of charge when it was fully or partly companyered by the amount charged in the transaction as whole.
They did number have to pay anything more.
The price that was charged to them was the prices charged elsewhere in the companyntry.
For M s.J.B.D. Co., Advs.
with for appellant S. Nambiar, Sr.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T BHARUCHA, J. The following Judgement of the Court was deliverd Under appeal is the judgement and order dated 11th May, 1989 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission .
It was argued by learned companynsel for the Director General that this increase in price companyered the companyt of prizes under the scheme.
It required the appellants to desist from indulging in trade practices similar to that which had been held to be an unfair trade practice.
C.B.Babu, P.Parmeswaran, Advs.
