GODREJ GE APPLIANCES LIMITED vs Whirlpool Of India Limited

THE applicant/complainant has moved this application under Section 13B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) for dealing with the respondent in contempt for breach of the order passed by this Commission on 5th February, 1997 in this case. THE respondent has filed its reply and has resisted this application on several grounds.

A few facts giving rise to this contempt proceeding may be narrated in order to appreciate rival contentions urged before us. The applicant/ complainant approached this Commission charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the MRTP Act by launching "Scratch a Gift Scheme" for promotion of sales of its refrigerators and washing machines. The applicant / complainant also simultaneously moved an application under Section 12A thereof for immediate discontinuance and suspension of the aforesaid gift scheme. By an order passed on 5th February, 1997, this Commission restrained the respondent from both advertising in all possible forms and implementing in every possible manner its aforesaid scheme till the next date of hearing fixed on 13th February, 1997. It appears that the respondent thereafter moved this Commission and obtained an order for extension of its implementation by some time. According to the applicant, the respondent was guilty of breach of the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 5th February, 1997 and also breach of the order passed subsequently on 10th February, 1997. According to the applicant, the respondent continued to advertise its aforesaid scheme in newspapers and also by means of hoardings which were not removed pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Commission. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Commission under Section 13B of the MRTP Act for dealing with the respondent in contempt for breach of the aforesaid order of this Commission. The respondent has filed its reply and has resisted this application on various grounds. It has inter alia contended that it took all possible steps for implementation of the order passed by this Commission on 5th February, 1997 and also the subsequent order passed on 10th February, 1997. It has inter alia contended that the advertisements with respect to the scheme in advance and on that account certain advertisements with respect to the scheme in question appeared in newspapers. It has also contended that instructions were given for removal of all hoardings with respect to the scheme in question but it took some time before all hoardings could be removed. It has also contended that it has a wide marketing network and all possible steps were taken to inform all authorised dealers about the aforesaid orders passed by this Commission on 5th and 10th February, 1997. However, according to the respondent, on account of some communication gap, some stray sales of its refrigerators and washing machines took place at different places. According to the respondent, there has been no wilful breach of the aforesaid orders passed by this Commission on 5th and 10th February, 1997 on the part of the respondent. It has, therefore, prayed for discharge of the contempt notice. It may be noted at this stage that it has also tendered an unqualified apology if the aforesaid orders of this Commission are unwittingly violated by and on behalf of the respondent.

We are satisfied on the basis of the material on record that the respondent took all possible steps for implementation of the aforesaid orders passed by this Commission on 5th and 10th February, 1997. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent had planned its advertisement campaign through various media well in advance. It is possible that, even after taking steps for discontinuance of the advertisement campaign, it might take some time before advertisements both in the print and the visual media with respect to the scheme in question were in fact discontinued. It transpires from the material on record that the respondent took steps for removal of hoardings advertising the scheme in question and it received the compliance report as to such removal on or about 15th February, 1997. It transpires from the material on record that the respondent has its marketing network throughout the length and breadth of this country and it is possible that communication of the aforesaid orders of this Commission could not reach certain dealers in time and certain instances of sale of its refrigerators and washing machines took place even after the aforesaid orders were passed by this Commission on 5th and 10th February, 1997. We are, however, satisfied that there has been no wilful default on the part of the respondent in implementing the aforesaid order passed by this Commission. In that view of the matter, the respondent cannot be said to be guilty of any wilful breach of the aforesaid two orders of this Commission passed on 5th and 10th February, 1997.

IN view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no action deserves to be taken against the respondent for the alleged breach of the aforesaid orders passed by this Commission on 5th and 10th February, 1997. IN the result, this contempt application fails. It is hereby rejected. The notice of contempt is discharged, however, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Contempt Application dismissed.