JUDGMENT - K. SUKUMARAN, J.:---This writ petition seeks to challenge an inter-locutory order of injunction passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices, Commission (herein-after referred to as "the Commission") in I.A. No. 50 of 1991 in UTPE No. 157 of 1991 dated 12-12-1991 as evidenced by Exhibit 'F'.

2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Jyothi Laboratories operating from Borivli, Bombay. Another operator in the same field but in the far South Coimbatore is the third respondent. The two enterpreneurs have come to legal blows over the quality of blue they manufacture. "Ujala" manufactured by the petitioner sought coverage, among other things, through magnetic media Doordarshan. That is pre-se not objectionable. There is, even if in restricted areas, atleast a partial survival of the Darwinian theory of survival of the fit. However, hitting below the belt its indeed immoral. Such was an allegation made by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Commission. It is not necessary to go into the contents of the contentions of the parties. That has to be done by the Commission who is in session of it.

3. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever, at this stage, to issue an interlocutory order of injunction invoking section 12-A of the Act. The petitioner states that the position is so plain, and the situation so tell-tale in view of a chain of decisions rendered by this Court concerning and construing the very same statutory provision. Notwithstanding the disinclination of the Court to interfere with interlocutory matters, the utter lack of jurisdiction is good enough justification for the petitioner to approach this Court even at this stage contends the petitioner.

4. The material factual details in the background of which the contention has to be evaluated may be conveniently alluded to, at this stage.

5. Exhibit "B" is the copy of the complaint under section 36-B(a) of the Act filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of Messrs. Southern India Trading Agency, Coimbatore, paying for an order restraining the advertisements of Jyothi Laboratories. It is dated 22-11-1991. The complaint was numbered as UTP Enquiry No. 157 of 1991. The Commission directed issue of notice on the complaint. The notice was made returnable on 5-3-1992.

6. Injunction was sought for by an interlocutory Application No. I.A. 50 of 1991, which invoked the jurisdiction of the Commission under section 12-A. The Commission directed the issue of notice on that application on 22-11-1991. The direction was carried out by the Office by Exhibit "A" Notice dated 25-11-1991. M/s. Jyothi Laboratories were directed to appear before the Commission on 10-12-1991 to show cause against the grant of the injunction prayed for. On the appointed day, Jyothi Laboratories appeared through its advocate. Doordarshan was unrepresented. A request was made by Jyothi Laboratories for grant of time to file its reply. The request was declined, though Counsel was permitted to argue the matter on the basis of the pleadings and materials then available.

7. An order allowing the application in part was ultimately passed on 12-12-1991. The Commission ordered that the advertisement complained against shall not be entertained or shown on T.V. by the Doordarshan until further orders. Both the respondents before the Commission were restrained from showing any similar advertisement on TV, which may directly or indirectly amount to disparagement of the products contained in a bottle similar to the one annexed to the application.

8. The jurisdictional contention is that the application for injunction could be entertained by the Commission only during the enquiry before it and not prior to the commencement of such an enquiry. An Enquiry before the Commission begins only with the issue of notice of enquiry on the main petition. The petitioner has not yet been served with a notice of enquiry either on 10-12-1991 when the matter was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document