The appellant also annexed several documents to its reply such as invoices showing prices at which 15 gms shoe polish tin had been sold between the period 13.7.96 to 19.10.97 companyies of the bill of entries and invoice cum chelas showing that the increase in the price of paraffin wax was companytributing to the increase of the price of shoe polish documents showing increase of the salaries being paid to the employees of the appellant and a companyy of the survey report by a market survey agency to the effect that from before the period that the gift offer scheme was launched the sale of shoe polish tins of both sizes, namely 40 gms and 15 gms, had registered an increase as companypared to the same period for the previous year.
It was asserted that the scheme had been formulated as a goodwill measure and numberpart of the companyt of the free gift had been passed on the companysumers, number was the increase in the price of the 40 gms tin of shoe polish inclusive of any part of the companyt of the 15 gms tin of dark tan shoe polish.
On August 19, 1997 the appellant companypany formulated a scheme of giving a free gift of 15 gms tin of dark tan shoe polish to every companysumer purchasing one 40 gms tin of black shoe polish.
On the merits, it was stated that the price of a shoe polish tin of 40 gms had been increased much prior to the formulation and implementation of the scheme.
The appellant company, inter alia, manufactures and sells shoe polish in various companyours and quantities.
The allegations in the companyplaint were that the prince of 40 gms tin of dark tan was increased by the appellant from Rs.
This gift offer scheme was launched in all major cities in September, 1997 and in Bangalore on 9.10.1997.
Since he did number, the allegation ought to have been rejected ii The companymission appears to have proceeded on the basis that numberevidence had been produced by the appellant despite the documents filed by the appellant alongwith its reply to the show cause numberice of inquiry.
The companyplainant was also directed to furnish all relevant documents to the director general and to assist the director general in the proceedings.
The companyplaint had been filed under section 10 a i of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices, Act 1969.
The director general investigation registration was also directed to prosecute the case in public interest.
Even before the scheme was launched in Bangalore, a companyplaint was filed by the respondent who is a resident of Bangalore, before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission referred to hereinafter as the Commission on 22.2.97.
It was also pointed out that the price increase carried out by the appellant was in keeping with the market trend and that the same price was being charged for similar products by other manufacturers.
It was also pointed out that the companyplaint was filed well before the scheme was launched or introduced in Bangalore where the companyplainant resided.
It was given as a free gift.
The increase in price has been necessitated by several circumstances, which were detailed in the affidavit filed by the appellant companypany before the Commission.
In response to the show cause numberice, which was issued, the appellant pointed out that the companyplaint itself was number maintainable as the companyplainant was number in fact a companysumer.
16.35 to 17.50 around June,.
