- (1.) The subject-matter of this appeal is an order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission holding that the appellant had violated the Commission's earlier order dated 23-8-1989 and directing the prosecution of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) The appellant used to carry on business of hire-purchase as a sole proprietor of a firm. In connection with his business, he issued certain advertisements pertaining to the sale of products such as refrigerators, colour tv sets, mopeds, etc. A complaint was filed by an organisation claiming to be a consumer protection society against several persons including the appellant alleging that they had indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of the Act. Two preliminary enquiry reports were filed by the director General who had been appointed by the Commission to hold an enquiry on the basis of the complaint against the several parties. As far as the appellant is concerned, it was noted that he had contended that he merely ran a hire-purchase business. No further particulars were given. It was also noted that although the appellant had not offered any gift to any of its "members", since no particulars had been given of the hire-purchase scheme by the appellant "its silence tantamounts to admission of indulgence in unfair trade practice".
(3.) The appellant filed a reply before the Commission on 8-2-1988 in which he stated that he had only advertised his hire-purchase business and had not conducted any lottery or contest. He also stated that he had discontinued his business of hire-purchase much earlier and had not issued any advertisement thereafter and therefore did not wish to contest the enquiry. However, on the assumption that the impugned advertisement as mentioned in the notice of enquiry amounted to an unfair trade practice, the appellant undertook that he would not give any such advertisement in future.;