JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J. :— This appeal under S. 55 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 1985 passed under S. 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 cause notice under S. 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 S. 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 Co. 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 appellants 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 Ss. 36-B and 36-D of the Act authorising the respondent Commission to make an enquiry and issue appropriate directions. The expression "unfair trade practice" has been defined in S. 36-A as a trade practice which adopts any or more of the practices enumerated in the section. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the respondent, and the judgment under appeal also holds, that the case is covered by Cls. (i) and (v) of S. 36-A(l) of the Act. The relevant portion of S. 36-A is reproduced below :

"36A. Definition of unfair trade practice.

In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, Unfair Trade Practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services, adopts one or more of the following practices and thereby causes loss or injury to the consumers of such goods or services, whether by eliminating or restricting competition or otherwise, namely :

(1) The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which, -

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, composition, style or model;

...................................

(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;"

4. It is the admitted position that "National" a