{"id":230649,"date":"2002-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002"},"modified":"2017-03-16T10:18:49","modified_gmt":"2017-03-16T04:48:49","slug":"colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji., S.B. Sinha.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  891 of 1993\n\nPETITIONER:\nColgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.R.T.P. Commission & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nCJI. & S.B. Sinha.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tW I T H<\/p>\n
    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2446 OF 1993  AND 2965 OF 1989<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
Interpretation of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
\nPractices Act, 1969 ( ‘the M.R.T.P. Act’) is in question in this batch of
\nappeals which arise out of the judgments and orders passed by the
\nMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (‘the Commission’),
\nNew Delhi whereby and where-under advertisements issued by the appellant
\nherein announcing a contest was held to be an unfair trade practice within the
\nmeaning thereof.\n<\/p>\n
The fact of the matter is being noted from Civil Appeal No.891 of
\n1993  Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Monopolies & Restrictive Trade
\nPractices Commission & Ors,.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant had inserted an advertisement in several newspapers in
\nSeptember, 1984 announcing a contest known as “Colgate Trigard Family
\nGood Habits Contest”.  ‘Trigard’ is the name of tooth-brush manufactured by
\nthe appellant.\tBy reason of the said advertisement, a contest apparently for
\nthe purpose of educating the families for inculcating good habit of taking care
\nof dental health was announced.\n<\/p>\n
 The brief particulars of the contest are as under:-
\nAs a condition precedent to participating in the contest each
\nprospective participant was required to send two upper portion of the cartons
\nin which the Trigard Tooth-brushes were sold.  These two upper portions of
\nthe carton were to be sent along with each entry form which was required to
\nbear the dealers’ name and address duly rubber-stamped on the form.
\nObviously this necessitated the purchase of two Trigard Colgate brushes by a
\nprospective participant\t in the contest.  The entry form contained four
\nquestions, each with two alternative answers which were also printed.\tThe
\ncontestant was required to tick mark the correct answer.
\nBy way of illustration the appellant had already ticked the correct
\nalternative in the case of first question which was as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“Brush in the morning;\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tonly in the morning;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tin the morning and after every meal”\n<\/p>\n
In the form alternative (b) had been ticked.\n<\/p>\n
 There were similar three questions with alternative answers.  Anyone
\nwith an ordinary knowledge of dental health could tick mark the correct
\nanswer to those questions.  But this was not enough.  In addition to answering
\nthe questions as mentioned above, each contestant had to write a sentence not
\nexceeding ten words describing as to why the contestant’s family used
\nColgate Trigard Tooth-brush.  The best entry in this regard would win the
\nfirst prize.  There were several other prizes for second, third and fourth
\nwinners.  In all there were  fifty prizes.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant further offered 825 consolation prizes of Rs.100\/- each and
\n1200 early bird prizes of Rs.50\/- each to be awarded to those 100 entries
\nwhich were received first every week.  The last mentioned prizes were
\nirrespective of whether the answers to the questions  were correct or not and
\nirrespective of the merit of the slogan which was to be provided by the
\ncontestant.\n<\/p>\n
A complaint was made to the Commission alleging that the said
\ncontest which  was organised by the appellant for the purpose of promotion
\nof sale of its product was in its own interest and prejudicial to the interest of
\nthe consumer generally as a result whereof serious injury or loss to the
\nconsumer concerned  was caused.\t The complainant alleged that such
\ncontests fell within clause (b) of paragraph 3 of  Section 36A of the M.R.T.P.
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
On receipt of the said complaint, an investigation was directed to be
\nmade, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, upon an enquiry, a
\npreliminary investigation report was submitted by the Director General,\t who
\nalso came to the conclusion that the said contest was covered by Section
\n36A(3)(b) of the M.R.T.P. Act.\n<\/p>\n
In terms of the recommendations made by the Director General, a
\nnotice of enquiry dated 3rd December, 1984 was issued, the relevant portion
\nwhereof reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“AND WHEREAS on perusal of the above-\n<\/p>\n
said complaint and preliminary investigation report
\nsubmitted by the Addl. Director General, it appears to
\nthe Commission that the Respondent is indulging in
\nthe Trade Practice of conducting a contest (Colgate
\nTrigard Family Good Habits Contest) for the purpose
\nof promoting the sale of its product (Tooth Brushes)
\nand also for the purpose of indirectly promoting its
\nbusiness interest;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tAND WHEREAS it appears to the
\nCommission that such trade practice is an unfair trade
\npractice causing injury and loss to the consumers (of
\ntooth brushes);\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tAND WHEREAS it appears that the said
\ncontest is arbitrary in nature and eliminates
\ncompetition among the manufacturers of tooth
\nbrushes and thus amounts to a restrictive trade
\npractice:”\n<\/p>\n
The appellant herein filed his reply pleading, inter alia, that such
\ncontest did not cause loss or injury to the consumers by eliminating and
\nrestricting competition or otherwise.  It was contended that the contest was
\neducative inasmuch as by inducing the users of the tooth-brushes to think
\nupon the questions of the contest, they would be made aware of the necessity
\nto keep good dental health.  It was pointed out that the best answer to the
\nquestion was to be judged by three eminent persons from different fields
\nbeing the Editor of Illustrated Weekly, the Editor of Eves Weekly and a T.V.
\npersonality and thus there was no element or chance of arbitrariness in the
\nselection of the winning slogan.\n<\/p>\n
A Bench of the Commission consisting of Mr. H.C. Gupta and Mr.
\nD.C. Aggarwal heard the said enquiry.  Mr. Gupta came to the conclusion
\nthat there was no loss or injury caused to the consumers; whereas Mr.
\nAggarwal differed from the said view holding that the loss or injury was
\ninherent in the case of trade practices mentioned in paragraph 3 of Section
\n36A of the MRTP Act.\n<\/p>\n
As the members of the Division Bench of the Commission did not
\nformulate any question to be decided by a third member, the matter was
\ndirected to be heard by a Full Bench.  By reason of the judgment under
\nappeal, the Commission, inter alia, agreed with the following findings of Mr.
\nAggarwal :\n<\/p>\n
“..”and thereby causes loss or injury to the
\nconsumers” are words of description which indicate
\nthat the trade practice described in Section 36A of
\nthe Act are vehicles of\t loss or injury.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“.The contest ceases to be innocent if it is held for
\nthe purpose of promoting the sale or the business
\ninterests of the organiser of that contest.  Some of
\nthe features of the contest under examination may
\nbe noted.  The contest induces the consumer to buy
\nminimum two tooth brushes to enable him to
\nparticipate in the contest.  If he wants to send more
\nentries he is naturally required to purchase
\nproportionately greater number of tooth brushes.
\nThere is no ceiling on the number of entries to be
\nsent by the contestant.\t An obnoxious feature of this
\ncontest is about the prizes which were awarded to
\nthe persons whose entries were received early in the
\nweek.  This aspect of the contest has nothing to do
\nwith the skill and was based totally on chance.\t The
\nnumber of losers in terms of money in this part of
\nthe contest cannot be insignificant.  The early bird
\naspect of the contest was purely in the nature of
\nlottery.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tMr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant would, in support of the Appeal, urge that the Commission committed a
\nmanifest error of law in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion by misreading and
\nmisinterpreting the provisions of Section 36A(3)(b) of the M.R.T.P. Act.  The
\nlearned counsel\t pointed out that the Commission did not find any actual loss or
\ninjury caused to the consumers by reason of the said advertisement nor any
\nallegation in that behalf had been made.  It was submitted that in a case of this nature
\neven no public interest was involved.  In support of this contention, the learned
\ncounsel has placed strong reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this
\nCourt in H.M.M. Ltd. v. Director General,  Monopolies & Restrictive Trade
\nPractices Commission<\/a> [(1998) 6 SCC 485] , (wherein one of us Hon. G.B. Pattanaik,
\nCJI. was a member).\n<\/p>\n
\t\tSection 36A(3)(b) as it stood at the relevant time reads as under :-
\n“36A. Definition of unfair trade practice.  In this
\nPart, unless the context otherwise requires, “unfair
\ntrade practice” means a trade practice which, for
\nthe purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply
\nof any goods or for the provision of any services,
\nadopts one or more of the following practices and
\nthereby causes loss or injury to the consumers of
\nsuch goods or services, whether by eliminating or
\nrestricting competition or otherwise, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
xxx\t\t   xxx\t\t       xxx\t       xxx<\/p>\n
3(b)  the conduct of any contest, lottery, game
\nof chance or skill, for the purpose of
\npromoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use
\nor supply of any product or any business
\ninterest;”\n<\/p>\n
A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly indicate
\nthat the following five ingredients are necessary to constitute an unfair trade
\npractice :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThere must be a trade practice (within the meaning of section
\n2(u) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act);\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe trade practice must be employed for the purpose of
\npromoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or the
\nprovision of any services;\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe trade practice should fall within the ambit of one or more
\nof the categories enumerated in clauses (1) to (5) of Section
\n36A;\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe trade practice should cause loss or injury to the consumers
\nof goods or services;\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe trade practice under clause (1) should involve making a
\n“statement” whether orally or in writing or by visible
\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
Causation of loss or injury thus is a sine qua non for invoking the
\nprinciples of Section 36A of the M.R.T.P. Act.\t The Commission, in our
\nconsidered opinion, committed a manifest error in holding that the actual loss
\nor injury is not an essential ingredient of the unfair trade practice.
\n It is now a well-settled principle of law that a literal meaning should
\nbe assigned to a statute unless the same leads to anomaly or absurdity.\t The
\nterminology used in the\t provisions is absolutely clear and unambiguous.  As
\nnoticed hereinbefore, in terms of the aforementioned provisions not only a
\ntrade practice is resorted to for the purpose of promoting sale or use or supply
\nof any goods or services, as specified therein but thereby loss or injury to the
\nconsumers of such goods or services must be caused.  The word ‘thereby’
\nmust be assigned its plain meaning for interpretation of  the aforementioned
\nprovision.\n<\/p>\n
In H.M.M. Ltd’s case (supra), this Court has clearly held  that for
\nholding a trade practice to be an unfair trade practice, it must be found that it
\nhad caused loss or injury to the consumer.\n<\/p>\n
We may notice that on or about 1993 an amendment has been made
\nwhereby the words “causing loss or injury to the consumer” were omitted
\nwhich also goes to show the law as it stood thence, ‘loss or injury to the
\nconsumer’ was a pre-requisite for attracting the provisions of Section
\n36A(3)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In interpreting the said provision, the ‘Mischief Rule” should be
\nresorted to.\n<\/p>\n
For the view, we have taken, the impugned judgments cannot be
\nsustained, which are set aside accordingly.   The appeals are allowed but in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Cji., S.B. Sinha. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 891 of 1993 PETITIONER: Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. RESPONDENT: M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2002 BENCH: CJI. & S.B. Sinha. JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nColgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-16T04:48:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-16T04:48:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1954,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-16T04:48:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-16T04:48:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-16T04:48:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002"},"wordCount":1954,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002","name":"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-16T04:48:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colgate-palmolive-india-ltd-vs-m-r-t-p-commission-ors-on-20-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}