http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OFINDFU & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/11/1998

BENCH: S.P.BHARUCHA, K.VENKATASWAMI, A.P.MISRA,

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT BHARUCHA.  J.

Leave granted. The appellant  manufactures  water  purifiers.    It issued  advertisements  staling  that  these water purifiers provided lOO% safe drinking water  instantly  and  that  the water stayed  bacteria  free  in  storage.    An enquiry was instituted by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission  at  the  behest  of  its  Director  General   of Investigation and  Registration.    A Notice of Enquiry- was issued to  the  appellant.    At  the  hearing  thereof  the appellant  did not contest the allegation made in the Notice of Enquiry and expressed willingness on the very first  date of  hearing  before  the  Commission to submit tea Cease and Desist Order, which was passed.   What  is  objected  to  on behalf  of  the  appellant  is this further direction of the Commission :    "If  the  respondent  wants  to   issue   an advertisement  in  future  about  its product, it will get a draft of its advertisement approved by the Commission.  " Impugning the power of the Commission to issue  such further  direction,  the  appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay.  The  High  Court  considered  the provisions  of  Section 36-B of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices  Act  as  amended,  and  observed  that  the impugned  direction  was  given  to  subserve  the object of effectively checking repetition of the unfair trade practice affecting a large number of people.  The High Court modified the impugned direction thus:            The Petitioner - manufacturer shall submit            the proposed draft  advertisement  to  the            Director  General along with the necessary            documents supporting or substantiating the            contents of the advertisement.  If they do            not  receive  any   objection   from   the            Director  General  within  four weeks, the            Petitioner  manufacturer   shall   be   at            liberty     to     publish     the    said            advertisement." The appellant is in appeal by special leave.  It  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

submitted  by learned counsel for the appellant that Section 36-B.  as it read at the relevant time, clearly conferred no power on the Commission to  issue  the  impugned  direction. Even   the   amended  Section  36-B,  which  really  had  no application to the particular case, did not  confer  on  the Commission the  power  to give such direction.  Emphasis was laid on the tact that the direction, whether  as  issued  by the  Commission  or  as  amended  by  the  High Court, would operate for all time to come.  It was  also  submitted  that the  Commission had ample powers to deal with any infraction of its Cease and Desist  Orders.    The  learned  Additional Solicitor    General,   appearing   for   the   respondents. emphasized the amended provision upon which the  High  Court had  relied  and  submitted  that  there  was  power  in the Commission to Issue the impugned direction.            Section 36-D, as it  originally  stood,            read as follows :            "36-D(l)  The  Commission  may  inquire            into any unfair  trade  practice  which  may            come before  it  for inquiry and.  if, after            such inquiry, it  is  of  opinion  that  the            practice   is   prejudicial  to  the  public            interest, or to the interest of the consumer            or consumers generally,  it  may,  by  order            direct that -            (a)  the  practice  shall be discontinued or            shall not be repeated; and            (b) any agreement relating  to  such  unfair            trade  practice shall be void or shall stand            modified in respect thereof in  such  manner            as may be specified in the Order.            (2)  The  Commission  may, instead of making            any order under  this  section,  permit  any            party  to carry on any trade practice, if it            so applies and take such  steps  within  the            time  specified  by the Commission as may be            necessary to ensure that the trade  practice            is  no  longer  prejudicial  to  the  public            interest or to the interest of any  consumer            or  consumers  generally,  and,  in any such            case, if the Commission  is  satisfied  that            necessary  steps  have been taken within the            time so specified, it may decide not to make            any order under this section in  respect  of            that trade practice,            (3) No order shall be made under sub-section            (1) in respect of any trade  practice  which            is  expressly  authorised by any law for the            time being in force." This  is  the  provision  which  ruled at the relevant time. There is, very clearly, no  empowerment  of  the  Commission thereunder  to  issue  a  direction  of  the  kind  which is impugned. The  amended  provision,  upon  which the High Court rested its order reads thus:            "(c)   any   information,    statement    or            advertisement  relating to such unfair trade            practice, shall be  disclosed  ,  issued  or            published,  as  the  case  may  be,  in such            manner as may be specified in the order." The amended provision cannot be  so  read  as  enabling  the Commission  to require all advertisements that the appellant might issue in the future to be approved by  the  Commission in advance.  The requirement to disclose information relates only to the unfair trade practice then under inquiry.  As to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

public  interest, the Commission is sufficiently armed under the Act with powers to take action against those who  breach its Cease  and  Desist  Orders.    We  do  not think that it requires the additional power of  supervision  of  the  kind indicated either in the impugned direction of the Commission or in the order under challenge to effectively carry out its obligations.    The   Commission   cannot  incorporate  such direction in its final Cease and Desist Orders. Accordingly, the  appeal  is  allowed.  The judgment and order of the High Court under appeal is set aside.   The writ  petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed to the extent aforestated.  No order as to costs.