Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GITA MITTAL, C. HARI SHANKAR, JJ.
Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(OS) 77 of 2018, CAV.No.441 of 2018 & CM Nos.19037-38 of 2018
Decided On : 10-05-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Harsh Kaushik and Mr. Abhay Chattopadhyay, Advs.
For the Respondent: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Hiten Sampat, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Ms. Rashmita Roy Choudhuri, Advs.
The relief granted by the court was based on the concession made by the appellant, and the court's directions were confined to the specific concessions made by the appellant.
Headnote:
Deceptive Advertising - Consumer Protection - Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - ASCI Guidelines - [CS(OS)No.156/2018, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the deceptive advertising by the appellant and the relief granted to the respondent based on the concession made by the appellant. The court examined the font size and placement of disclaimers in the advertisements, and upheld the direction to use a font size of 12 pixels in the print media while setting aside other directions.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging deceptive advertising during T20 cricket matches. The respondent sought interim injunctions and directions to suspend the advertisements. The appellant made concessions and incorporated necessary changes in its advertisements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief granted to the respondent was based on the concession made by the appellant. The court upheld the direction to use a font size of 12 pixels in the print media while setting aside other directions.
Issues: Deceptive advertising, compliance with court orders, font size and placement of disclaimers in advertisements.
Ratio Decidendi: The relief granted to the respondent was based on the concession made by the appellant. The court's directions were confined to the specific concessions made by the appellant.
Final Decision: The court upheld the direction to use a font size of 12 pixels in the print media while setting aside other directions. The challenge to the order granting relief to the respondent was rejected, and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge for further proceedings.
GITA MITTAL, J.
CAV.No.441/2018
1. Ld. counsel for the caveator has put in appearance on advance notice and has been heard.
2. The caveat stands discharged.
CM No.19038/2018
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
FAO(OS) 77/2018 & CM No.19037/2018
1. The respondent herein filed a suit, being CS(OS)No.156/2018, on the Original Side of this court, against the present appellant alleging that the advertisements issued by the appellant in the media, with regard to an offer for its 4G customers during the T20 cricket matches, were deceptive, misleading and misrepresentative to the consumers inasmuch as the disclaimers in the said advertisements did not make it clear to the intending customers that the subscription is free only for the Hotstar application and that the consumers were still required to pay data usage charges when they viewed the matches on the said applications.
2. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application being I.A.No.4933/2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the following prayers :
“(a) Pass an interim ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant, their representatives, from in any manner publishing/airing/televising or propagating in any mode or manner either orally/writing/publishing/telecasting or airing the Subject Advertisements or any similar advertisement claiming to offer free live streaming of cricket T20 matches during the pendency of the present suit.
(b) Pass an interim ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, their employees, agents, officers, assigns, representatives directing and/or commanding them to forthwith suspend/from their website, inter alia being www.airtel.in, and from the website www.youtube.com and from such other website belonging to the defendant and/or other websites which are available for access and viewing to the general public, the subject advertisements and all material/articles/stories/news/report etc. which relate to the Subject advertisements and/or any related advertisement campaign claiming that the defendant offers “free” live viewing/streaming of cricket T20 matches to subscribers/consumers during the pendency of the present suit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
3. The above application came up for consideration on the 13th of April 2018 before the ld. Single Judge when the appellant/defendant was represented on advance notice and submissions were made on its behalf which have been noted in para 6 of the order recorded on that date. These submissions deserve to be noted in extenso and read as follows :
“6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant on advance notice argued the plaintiff is jealous competitor and what is meant by ‘free subscription’ is free subscription of HOTSTAR network and whereas the advertisement specifically provides if one intends to watch the game one has to us e data as per the plan taken by him/her. However, during the course of the arguments, the learned senior counsel for the defendant, under instructions, agreed the defendant would include the following in its advertisement in bold letters:-
(a) the subscription of HOTSTAR shall only be free; and
(b) the data charges will be as per subscriber’s tariff plan.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The ld. Single Judge appears to have accepted the submissions made on behalf of the defendant and in para 7, directed as follows :
“7. Needless to say this shall be without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of both the parties. The changes shall be carried out by the defendant immediately in their ongoing subject advertisements.”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. It is apparent from the above that the relief granted by the ld. Single Judge on the 13th of April 2018 was premised strictly on the concession made on behalf of the appellant/defendant, as noted
