It is further stated that the Mitsushita Ltd. of Japan is better known by its products described by the names National and Panasonic and there is numberquestion of misleading anybody by the description of the Japanese Compa ny by its products.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.1987 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No.
In its reply the Company appellant before us denied to have made any wrong representation in the advertisements.
Rejecting the appellants explanation, the Commission passed the impugned order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
764 NM of 1988.
The Commission issued a show cause numberice under s. 36 B of the Act to the appellant Company informing it that a pro ceeding had been instituted for making an inquiry whether the Company was indulging in certain unfair trade practices prejudicial to public interest within the meaning of s. 36 A companyy of the numberice has been attached to the petition of appeal as Annexure C, wherein it was alleged that, although the Company was manufacturing Novino batteries in companylaboration with M s Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd, and number with National Panasonic of Japan, it was issuing advertisements announcing that Novi numberbatteries are manufactured in companylabora tion with National Panasonic of Japan using National Panasonic techniques, and the representation that Novino batter ies are manufactured by joint venture or companylaboration with National Panasonic was false and misleading and thereby causing loss or injury to the companysumers.
Anil Dev Singh and Hemant Sharma for the Respondents.
L. Sanghi, Parveen Anand, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, M. Satin and Atul Nanda for the Appellant.
76 of 1985.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal under s. 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act is directed against the decision of the MonopOlies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission dated November 13, 1987 in the Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No.
76 of 1985 passed under s. 36 D 1 of the Act forbidding the appellant Company from issuing certain type of advertisement as indicated in the order.
It was asserted that the Company has actually entered into a companylaboration agreement with M s Mitsushita Electric Indus trial Ltd. of Japan for the manufacture of dry cell batter ies, and was adopting the process for manufacturing Novino batteries as is employed by Mitsushita Ltd. The agreement has been duly approved by the Ministry of Industry, Govern ment of India.
