S.R. Pandian JUDGMENT
L.M. Sharma, J.
1. This appeal under s. 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 198 passed under Section 36-D(1) of the Act forbidding the appellant Company from issuing certain type of advertisements as indicated in the order.
2. The Commission issued a show case notice under Section 36-B of the Act to the appellant Company informing it that a proceeding 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 Section 36-A. A copy of the notice has been attached to the petition of appeal as Annexure 'C', wherein it was alleged that,
(i) although the Company was manufacturing 'Novino' batteries in collaboration with M/S Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. and not with National Panasonic of Japan, it was issuing advertisements announcing that 'Novino' batteries are manufactured in collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan using National Panasonic techniques, and
(ii) the representation that 'Novino' batteries are manufactured by joint venture or collaboration with National Panasonic was false and misleading and thereby causing loss or injury to the consumers.
In its reply the Company (appellant before us) denied to have made any wrong representation in the advertisements. It was asserted that the Company has actually entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. Mitsushita Electric Industrial Ltd. of Japan for the manufacture of dry cell batteries, 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, Government of India, 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 no question of misleading anybody by the description of the Japanese Company by its products. Rejecting the appellant's explanation, the Commission passed the impugned order.
3. As is clear from the show cause notice, it has been assumed that the appellant Company is manufacturing 'Novino' batteries in collaboration with Mitsushita Ltd., but the question is whether, in the circumstances, it can claim that it is making "batteries in collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan", and further whether the act, complained of, will be covered by the provisions of Section