Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for . VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI...

. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI - 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 1044 : Under Rule 23(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, no retail dealer or other person shall make any retail sale of any commodity in packaged form at a price exceeding the retail sale price (MRP) indicated on the package. Rule 23(6) further prohibits the obliteration, smudging, or alteration of the MRP on the package. Violation of these provisions makes the retailer liable to be proceeded against and subject to a fine of up to Rs 2,000 per package under Rule 39 of the Packaged Commodities Rules and Section 67 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (SWM) Act. These provisions are enforceable by State Governments and Union Territories, and the Public Accounts Committee has noted that violations of MRP rules have led to cases being booked, though action taken may vary. The system is designed to protect consumers and ensure compliance with the printed MRP, with no legal defense available to a retailer who sells above the MRP, even if they claim it is unreasonable.Checking relevance for I. T. C. LTD. VS Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi...

I. T. C. LTD. VS Commissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2004 6 Supreme 564 : Under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standard Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, a retailer who sells a commodity at a price exceeding the declared retail sale price (MRP) on the package commits an infringement. Rule 23(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules explicitly prohibits any retail dealer or other person from making a retail sale at a price higher than the declared retail sale price. Violation of this rule makes the retailer liable to penalties under Rule 39 of the Rules and Section 67 of the SWM Act. The penalty includes a fine of up to Rs. 2000 per package. The consumer has the right to insist on adherence to the printed MRP, and the retailer cannot defend a sale above MRP by arguing that the price was unreasonable or incorrect. The enforcement of these provisions is carried out by State Governments and Union Territories.Checking relevance for Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Limited VS Union of India...

Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Limited VS Union of India - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1111 : Under Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO, 1995), a retailer who sells a drug formulation at a price exceeding the notified MRP (Maximum Retail Price) is in violation of the law. Paragraph 16 of DPCO, 1995 imposes an absolute obligation on all persons not to sell any formulation to any consumer at a price exceeding the price specified in the ''''current price list'''' or the price indicated on the label of the container or back thereof, whichever is less. The ''''current price list'''' refers to the price list reflecting the currently notified price under the DPCO, which is the MRP as reflected in column 11 of Form V. The scheme of the DPCO is intended to ensure that consumers are protected by the reduced current price of the formulation. Therefore, selling above the MRP constitutes a punishable offense under the DPCO, and the retailer may face criminal action, including prosecution and penalties, for such violation. The law does not permit the retailer to rely on prior purchase price or batch-specific pricing, as the effective price for sale is determined by the current notified price, regardless of when the goods were purchased or manufactured.Checking relevance for State Of Rajasthan VS Rajasthan Chemists Association...

Checking relevance for The National Foundation For Consumer VS Union of India ...

Checking relevance for Biju Y.S., S/o. A. Yesudanam vs Drugs Controller, Thiruvananthapuram...

Checking relevance for State Tax Officer, Investigation Branch-I, State GST Department VS Y. Balakrishnan...

Checking relevance for Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd VS Senior Inspector...

Checking relevance for Baccarose Perfumes And Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd. VS Central Bureau of Investigation...

Checking relevance for Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur VS A. R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for India Photographic Company LTD. VS H. D. Shourie...

Checking relevance for Ramdev Food Products Pvt. LTD. VS Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel...

Checking relevance for Amery Pharmaceuticals VS State Of Rajasthan...

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Itc LTD. ...

Checking relevance for Atic Industries VS H. H. Dewa, Assistant Collector Of Central Excise...

Criminal Actions and Provisions Against Retailers for Selling Products Above MRP

Main Points and Insights

• No Evidence of Overpricing: Multiple court judgments (e.g., sources Prasant Kumar Biswal VS State of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 606, Aruna Kumar Sahoo VS Sate of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 528, BENUDHAR PARIDA Vs STATE OF ORISSA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 14387, BHAGYABATI PANDA vs STATE OF ORISSA, DILLIP KU.ROUT Vs STATE OF ORISSA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 10732, AMIT RAJ vs STATE OF ORISSA, AJAYA KUMAR BARAL Vs STATE OF ORISSA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 12200, BINODINI PALO vs STATE OF ORISSA, DEBENDRA KU.SAHOO vs STATE OF ORISSA) indicate that there is no allegation or evidence that retailers have sold products above the MRP. The primary concern is whether retailers have sold below or at the MRP, not above it.

• Market Conditions and Pricing Flexibility: Even when MRP is fixed, market conditions often lead retailers to sell below the MRP or offer discounts; selling above MRP is not evidenced or presumed.

• Legal Stance: Courts have emphasized that without concrete proof of overpricing, criminal action cannot be initiated solely based on alleged violations of MRP fixation.

Available Legal Provisions and Actions

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
• Section 4 & 5: Prohibits unfair trade practices, including selling goods above the MRP, but requires proof of such practices.

• Section 2(47): Defines unfair trade practice to include false or misleading representations about the price of goods.

• Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 420 (Cheating): Can be invoked if a retailer knowingly sells above the MRP with intent to cheat consumers.

• Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust): Applicable if a retailer breaches trust by misrepresenting pricing.

• Legal Action:

• Filing of FIR: Based on evidence of overpricing or deceptive practices.

• Penalties: Imprisonment up to 2 years, fines, or both under the Consumer Protection Act and IPC.

• Regulatory Enforcement:

• Authorities like Consumer Courts and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums can impose penalties and order compensation if unfair practices are proven.

Conclusion

Criminal actions against retailers for selling above MRP are only feasible if there is concrete evidence of such overpricing and intent to deceive consumers. The primary legal provisions involve the Consumer Protection Act and IPC sections related to cheating and unfair trade practices. Without proof of overpricing, enforcement agencies typically do not pursue criminal proceedings.