1. This enquiry was instituted under Section 36B(d) and Section 3GD of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, against the respondent which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling printing machines. The allegation against the respondent was that it had made certain false and misleading representations while selling a printing machine to Abitha Printers of which K. Parameswaran was the proprietor. Shri Parameswaran submitted a complaint before the Commission stating that in December, 1983, Shri J. K. Shah, a broker of the respondent, approached him and said that if he was interested in improving the efficiency and profitability of his business he might go in for the printing machine being manufactured by the respondent. The complainant further states that he believed the broker and placed an order for the printing machine with the respondent in response to which the complainant received a pro forma invoice dated February 22, 1984, on February 27, 1984. The complainant arranged for the amount of Rs. 37,415 and deposited the sum on April 24, 1984, with the Canara Bank, Madras, in favour of the respondent. In pursuance of the order of the complainant a further sum of Rs. 1.36,000 was deposited by him with the respondent. Eventually the printing machine was supplied by the respondent but it was discovered that the machine was damaged. The respondent refused to replace the damaged parts or to repair the printing machine despite repeated requests. The complainant, therefore, submitted that the respondent had clearly indulged in unfair trade practices attracting the provision's of Section 36A(1)(i), (vii) and (viii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 2. The Commission ordered a preliminary investigation which confirmed the allegations made by the complainant. As a result, the Director (Research) who had conducted the investigation recommended in his preliminary investigation report that an enquiry under Section 36A(1)(i), (vii) and (viii) be instituted against the respondent.
3. On the basis of the preliminary investigation report, the Commission instituted the present enquiry and issued a notice of enquiry to the respondent in reply to which the respondent submitted its version raising, inter alia, the plea of lack of jurisdiction in the Commission to take cognizance of the complaint on the ground that the allegations of unfair trade practices related to a period prior to the insertion of the Chapter on unfair trade practices in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. It is unnecessary to set out the defence of the respondent on the merits of the complaint in view of the fact that the preliminary objection relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission has to be upheld even on the facts which are not in dispute.
4. On the pleas raised by the respondent in its reply four issues were struck by the Commission vide its order dated March 20, 1991. The first issue was "whether the notice of enquiry is not maintainable for reasons mentioned in the reply to the notice of enquiry." The preliminary objection was repeated before us by Shri V. S. Joneja, learned counsel for the respondent. He invited our attention to the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that all the allegations made by the complainant against the respondent which were stated to constitute unfair trade practices related to the period prior to 1st August, 1984, the date on which the chapter on unfair trade practices was inserted in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
5. Learned counsel is clearly right. In order to bring home a charge of unfair trade practice it is necessary to show that the erring trader has, for the purpose of promoting the sale of his goods, adopted any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including the practice of making a statement whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard or quality, etc. In the present case, the alleged false or misleading representations are stated to have been made in December, 1983, by Shri J. K. Shah, the broker/agent of the respondent company who had approached the complainant and canvassed on behalf of the respondent as to the standard and quality of the printing machines being manufactured by the respondent. The further allegation is that as part of his effort to induce the complainant to purchase the printing machine, Shri Shah had also taken the complainant on March 10, 1984, to the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. for securing the requisite financial assistance for the complainant to purchase the machine. Again on February 27, 1984, the same broker also delivered to the complainant the pro forma invoice dated February 22, 1984, of the respondent's head office, The complainant asserts in his complaint that it was because of the persuasion of Shri Shah that he had raised the money and placed orders for the machinery in question with the respondent. All the allegations pertaining to the alleged falsity of the representations made by Shri Shah, a broker-cum-agent of the respondent are stated to have been made before August 1, 1984.
6. In the case of Godrej and Boyce Co. (UTPE No. 84 of 1986 decided on 25-8-1988) ; [1991] 70 Comp Cas 224, a Full Bench of this Commission categorically ruled that the Chapter on unfair trade practices inserted on August 1, 1984, in the Act could not be applied or invoked retrospectively. That is to say, allegations of unfair trade practices relating to the period prior to August 1, 1984, cannot be examined by the Commission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act as the provisions relating to unfair trade practices are not retrospective in operation. Unfair trade practices are in the nature of economic offences and the provisions relating thereto must in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the statute, have prospective operation.
7. The above decision has been reaffirmed by another Full Bench of this Commission in Shri Y. P. Mahna v. Bharat Television [1994] 81 Comp Cas 277, New Delhi decided on 13th October, 1993. That being' so it must be held that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain (he present complaint. The preliminary issue is accordingly answered in the affirmative and it is held that the enquiry is not maintainable.
8. The first issue having been answered in the affirmative, the other issues do not arise and need not, therefore, be answered. In the result, the notice of enquiry is discharged. No orders as to costs.