Skip to content


Director-general (i and R) Vs. Panama Chemical Works - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1987)61CompCas353NULL
AppellantDirector-general (i and R)
RespondentPanama Chemical Works
Excerpt:
1. this is an application under section 36b(c) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, moved by the director-general of investigation and registration (hereinafter referred to as " the applicant ") against m/s. panama chemical works, bombay (hereinafter referred to as " the respondent "). the enquiry arose from an advertisement which appeared in the gujarat samachar, dated february 23, 1986. the respondent is the manufacturer of painjon tablets. in order to promote the sale of these tablets, the respondent announced a contest offering first prize of rs. 21,000 in cash or in lieu thereof a world travel air ticket. the second prize is rs. 5,000 in cash or in lieu thereof one delhi/singapore/delhi air ticket. the third prize is rs. 2,000 in cash or in lieu thereof one.....
Judgment:
1. This is an application under Section 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, moved by the Director-General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as " the applicant ") against M/s. Panama Chemical Works, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as " the respondent "). The enquiry arose from an advertisement which appeared in The Gujarat Samachar, dated February 23, 1986. The respondent is the manufacturer of Painjon tablets. In order to promote the sale of these tablets, the respondent announced a contest offering first prize of Rs. 21,000 in cash or in lieu thereof a world travel air ticket. The second prize is Rs. 5,000 in cash or in lieu thereof one Delhi/Singapore/Delhi air ticket. The third prize is Rs. 2,000 in cash or in lieu thereof one Delhi/Nepal/Delhi air ticket.

Besides these three prizes, there are 100 consolation prizes.

2. In order to enter the contest, it is required that the contestant should tick mark and complete the sentence in not more than 10 words.

The sentence to be completed relates to the pain killer medicines and also as to why patients prefer " Painjon " to the other pain relieving medicines. The last date for sending the entry form was May 30, 1986.

It is the condition of the contest that the decision about the winners of the competition will be on the basis of suitable reply to the question and the completion of the sentence.

3. It is stated by the applicant that, according to the contest scheme, one can send any number of entry forms but each entry form should accompany a cash memo of Painjon strip. Each Painjon strip costs Rs. 3 plus taxes and, therefore, according to the applicant, a contestant is required to spend some money. Thus, according to the applicant, the advertisement is meant to allure the customers to buy Painjon tablets in the hope of getting a prize in preference to other medicines. This contest is said to be hit by Sub-section (3) of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The respondent did not file any reply to the notice of enquiry.

4. However, the respondent has sent an application by post with an affidavit. In this application, it is stated that the respondent does not want to contest the notice of enquiry. He undertakes that he shall not issue any advertisement to hold any contest in future for the promotion of the sale of " Painjon tablets ". The application has been captioned as one under Section 36D(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

5. In view of the fact that the respondent does not want to contest the notice of enquiry, we hold that the giving of prizes for the promotion of the sale of these tablets falls within the purview of Sub-section (3) of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and the trade practice is prejudicial to public interest or to the interest of consumers. Therefore, we pass a " cease and desist" order under Section 36B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, directing that the respondent shall desist from arranging any such contest or gift scheme for the sales promotion of " Painjon tablets " and shall not repeat it in future.

7. A copy of the order shall be sent immediately to the respondents for information and compliance.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //