DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INVESTIGATION And REGISTRATION vs ASIATIC PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

THIS order shall dispose of the above enquiry dated 23rd February, 1995.

THE respondent is, inter-alia, engaged in the sale and distribution of LPG and Superior Kerosene Oil under the parallel marketing system of Government of India. THE respondent has released an advertisement in the "Hindustan Times" dated 18.1.94 and 19.1.94 under the caption "the secret of Priya''s smile .... lies with Asiatic Petroleum", wherein the logo of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) has appeared alongwith the logo of respondent. However, the BPCL has informed that it has not authorised any parallel marketer including the respondent to use its name or logo for the purpose of its business interest. The Notice of Enquiry which was issued on 23rd February, 1995 mentioned as under: Whereas the respondent, namely M/s. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. is, inter-alia, engaged in the sale and distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) under the Parallel Marketing System of Government of India:

And whereas in the wake of a reference from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Director General (Investigation and Registration) has filed an application u/Section 36B(C) stating the following: 1. That the respondent has released some advertisements in the leading newspapers where the logo of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) has appeared alongwith a logo of paraller marketer i.e., respondent. 2. That according to Oil Co-ordination Committee established by the Government of India, the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper is highly misleading to the public as the extent of participation of BPCL in the venture is not mentioned anywhere and gives an impression that this is a joint venture of BPCL and M/s. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. 3. That BPCL has informed the applicant that it has not authorised any parallel marketer to use its name or logo for purpose of its business interest, that the agreement signed with paraller marketers is limited to the receipt of imported LPG parcels in its refinery at Bombay subject to availability of storage space and delivery of LPG into the party''s tank trucks at the refinery. 4. That since the respondent has unauthorisedly linked BPCL''s name for furtherance of its business interest, the latter has terminated w.e.f. 4.4.94 all agreements signed with it relating to storage/handling facilities for SKO and LPG.

THAT there is information by way of a newspaper report that the respondent has collected crores of rupees from the public for award of dealership in the guise of an agreement entered with BPCL and that the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi has stayed the activities of the respondent as it has misled the public and that it is not complying with the provisions of law relating to incorporation of companies. 5. The trade practice indulged in by the respondent of inserting a logo and name of BPCL and of creating an impression of a joint venture and of soliciting, dealership on the strength of false representation about the sponsorship, approval or affiliation including the need for and usefulness of becoming a dealer for furtherance of its business interest is an Unfair Trade Practice falling under Clauses (v) and (vi) of Section 36A(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969. Such unfair trade practice is prejudicial to public interest and especially to those who became dealers on the basis of representations made by the respondent. A copy of application dated 13th October, 1994 (alongwith enclosures) filed by DG (I & R) under Section 36B(c) of the MRTP Act, 1969 was enclosed for reference.

THE case was fixed for the above hearing on 24th April, 1995. THE respondent did not appear. However, opportunity was given to the respondent to appear on 24.7.95, 4.8.95 and 13.9.95. THE respondent was not present on any of the above dates. From the very beginning the respondent has neither cared to reply to the Notice of Enquiry nor appeared before the Commission. THE matter was finally listed for the DG''s ex-parte hearing and arguments on 8.3.96. The Director General has filed ex-parte evidence by way of an affidavit dated 29.2.96 wherein the Director General has proposed to rely upon the following documents: (i) Letter dated 25.2.94 received from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas addressed to Director General of Investigation and Registration alongwith a copy of Oil Comnet No. MC & EC: PMS-3 dated 20.1.94 and a press cutting released by the respondent in "Hindustan Times", Evening News dated 18.1.94. (ii) Letter dated 29.3.94 addressed to the respondent by the office of the DG (I & R) (iii) Letter dated 9.5.94 addressed to the respondent by the office of the DG (I&R) (iv) Letter dated 13.6.94 addressed to the respondent by the office of the DG (I&R) (v) Letter dated 25.4.94 addressed to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay by the office of the DG (I & R). (vi) Letter dated 27.7.94 addressed to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay by the office of the DG (I & R). (vii) Letter dated 22.8.94 addressed to the office of DG (I & R) by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay alongwith enclosures.

On 8.3.96 the Hon''ble Commission has taken on record the ex-parte affidavit alongwith the above documents filed on behalf of the Director General and ex-parte arguments were heard.

IN this matter, it is evident from the impugned advertisement released by the respondent in "Hindustan Times" that the respondent has not only used the logo of BPCL alongwith its own logo but has inter-alia mentioned the name of Bharat Petroleum Company Limited, a Government of INdia subsidiary alongwith its own name while inviting offer for distributorship/dealership for Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The impugned advertisement released by the respondent gives an impression that the respondent is a joint venture alongwith BPCL and on the strength of the said false claims the respondent has succeeded in collecting money from the public for award of dealership.

IT is pertinent to point out that the respondent neither during the course of investigation nor after the issuance of Notice of Enquiry has come forward with any reply to the allegations made against it. IT is, therefore, implied that the allegations made in the Notice of Enquiry against the respondent are correct and the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practice falling under Clauses (v) and (vi) of Section 36A(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969. IT is also against the public interest for the reasons discussed above. The respondent is, therefore, directed to cease and desist from indulging in the trade practices mentioned in the Notice of Enquiry. He has to bear Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the Director General. The violation of this order will be treated as violation of the order of the Commission. The respondent is directed to file an affidavit of compliance within 8 weeks from the date of this order. Enquiry disposed of.