ivil Appeal No 950 N of 1973
From the Judgment and Order dated 281972 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No 2826 of 1969
Pinaki Misra PH Parekh and Ms Sunita Sharma for the Appellants
V N Ganpule and VD Khanna for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
The subject matter of this appeal is 1330 acres of land in Sholapur District within the State of Maharashtra
The appellants are the heirs of one Mugaji Laxman Padule who was the tenant of the land for about 3 decades before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act was 240 enacted
Under the provisions of the Act Mugaji was enti tled to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain condi tions
Admittedly he did not satisfy these conditions and said so before the authorities concerned
The landlords who are now represented by the respondents were claiming pos session of the area under the Act
Mugaji subsequently made a claim to the Land on another basis
On his death in 1962 his heirs the appellants were substituted
The matter was considered by several authorities under the Act who ultimately rejected the appellants  case
The appellants thereafter moved the Bombay High Court by an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was rejected by the impugned judgment
The procedure for the tenant to purchase the land is laid down in Sec
32G of the Act
It enjoins the Agricultur al Land Tribunal constituted under Sec 67 to publish a public notice calling upon the tenants the landlords and any other interested person to appear before it on a speci fied date
The Tribunal is also required to issue individual notices to the landlords and the tenants and thereafter to decide the competing cases
32A limits the right of a tenant holding other Lands to such area only which will raise his holding to the extent of the ceiling area
Admit tedly Mugaji was already possessed of lands beyond the ceiling area and he therefore did not claim to have pur chased the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act
In a situation where a tenant is not able to success fully claim the land it has to be disposed of in the manner provided in Sec
32P which states that the former tenant would be summarily evicted and the land would be surrendered to the landlord
In the present case the land in question thus went to the landlords
According to the case of the appellants on a partition in the family of the landlords the disputed land was allotted to the share of the respond ents 2 to 4 and Mugaji purchased the same for a sum of Rs 3000 from them on 361960
The appellants alleged that by this date ie 361960 the land held by Mugaji was within the ceiling area following a partition between him and his sons on 13101959 3
The respondents moved the authorities under the Act in 1963 for recognising their claim
They did not implead the appellants and suppressed the fact of the sale on 361960 in favour of Mugaji
The Agricultural Lands Tribu nal and Additional Mamlatdar relying on the enquiry under Sec
32G wherein the right of Mugaji as a tenant was nega tived upheld the claim of the present respondents by his order dated 2841963
When the appellants learnt about it they filed an appeal before the Collector
They also chal lenged the earlier order 241 passed against Mugaji under Sec
32G The Collector remanded the matter on 2591963
The Additional Mamlatdar by his order dated 82
1964 observed that since the tenant had purchased the suit land from the landlords the proceeding was fit to be dropped and it was appropriate to deal with the case under Sec
84C of the Act
84C states that in respect of a transfer of any land made after 1955 if the Mamlatdar has reason to believe that the transfer was in valid on account of any of the provisions of the Act he would issue notice and hold an enquiry and decide whether the transfer is invalid or not
In 1965 a further order was passed in the case wherein the Agricultural Lands Tribunal held the purchase by Mugaji on 361960 as lawful and upheld the claim of the appellants
The order was upheld in appeal and the respondent No 3 filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal
It was contended on behalf of the present appellants that after the partition between Mugaji and his sons in 1959 the area held by him came below the ceiling level and he was thus
entitled to purchase the land on 36
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the land owned by Mugaji did not belong to the joint family and his sons had no share therein and the alleged partition therefore could not be accepted or recognised
The result is that even in 1960 Mugaji was possessed of land beyond the ceiling area and he was not entitled to purchase further land from the respondents 2 to 4
Thus having lost the case the appellants moved the Bombay High Court and their application was rejected by a short judg ment passed on 28
1972 which is under challenge in this appeal by Special Leave
The learned counsel for appellants contended that the High Court was in error in assuming that the claim of the appellants was based on the right of Mugaji under Sec
32G of the Act in the capacity of a tenant and also in relying on Sec
10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Ceiling on Holdings Act 1961
The learned counsel appears to be right but for this reason the appellants can not succeed
The ban on transfers which may affect the ceiling law is more severe under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
63 directs that no sale of land shall be valid in favour of a person who will after such sale hold land ex ceeding two thirds of the ceiling area determined under the Maharashtra Agricultural lands Ceiling on Holdings Act 1961
The fact that on the death of Mugaji in 1962 his earlier holdings were inherited by his heirs and the respec tive holdings therefore came below the ceiling area is immaterial because the disputed land was purchased by Mugaji himself in 1960
It has to be remembered that as has been held by the Revenue Tribunal the other 242 lands exclusively belonged to Mugaji and exceeded the ceil ing area
The sale on 361960 must therefore be held to be illegal and inoperative
Consequently the appellants must lose although for slightly different reasons than those given by the High Court
The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs
GN Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The MRTP Commission respondent in the appeal issued a show cause notice under Section 36 B of the to the appellant company informing that a proceeding had been instituted for making an inquiry whether the said Company was indulging in certain unfair trade practices prejudicial to the public interest within the meaning of section 36 A of the Act
It was alleged in the notice that although the appellant company was manufacturing Novino  Batteries in collaboration with Ms Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd and not with National Panasonic of Japan it was issuing advertisements announcing that Novino  Batteries were manufactured in collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan using Nation al Panasonic techniques and that the said representation was false and misleading and thereby causing loss or injury to the consumers
The Company in its reply to the said notice denied having made any wrong representation in its advertisement and asserted that the company had actually entered into a collaboration agreement with Ms Mitsushita Electric Indus trial Ltd for the manufacture of dry ceil batteries and was adopting the process employed by Mitsushita Ltd for manufacturing Novino  Batteries
The Company further stated that Mitsushita Ltd of Japan was better known by its products described by the names National  and Panasonic  and that there was therefore no question of misleading anybody by the description of the Japanese Company by its products
Rejecting the Company s explanation the Commission held that bearing in mind the Indian conditions the use of N ational  and Panasonic  to signify collaboration will have a misleading effect on the minds 980 of common class of customers particularly when Novino Bat teries is projected and advertised side by side with Nation al Panasonic and Technics Batteries in advertisements
The Commission also refused to accept the plea of the Company that the advertisements have mentioned the brand names instead of the manufacturing company since National  and Panasonic  were well known names in India while the manu facturing company Mitsushita Ltd was not as a plea of good defence
On the question whether the appellant company indulged in unfair trade practice under clauses i and v of section 36 A1 of the MRTP Act 1962
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD la The MRTP Act as it originally stood did not contain any provision for protection of consumers against false or misleading advertisements or other similar and unfair trade practices
By providing for measures against restrictive and monopolistic trade practices it was perhaps assumed that the consumers also as a result will get a fair deal
However experience indicated otherwise and following the recommendations of a Committee it was considered necessary to amend the Act
Accordingly sections 36 A to 36 E in part B were inserted in Chapter V of the Act by an amendment in 1984
984E F G 2
It would be more proper for the appellant Company to give the full facts by referring to Mitsushita Ltd by its correct name and further stating that its products are known by the name National and Panasonic
986C 3
An advertisement mentioning merely Mitsushita Ltd may therefore fail to convey anything to an ordinary buyer unless he is also told that it is the same Company which manufactures products known to him by the names National and Panasonic
If such were the position there would not have been any scope for objection
However the same effect is produced by the impugned advertisements
There is no other company with the name of National  and Panasonic  and there is no scope for any confusion on that score
985G H 986A 4
Where the reference is being made to the standard of the quality it is not material whether the manufacturing company is indicated by its actually correct name or by its description with reference to its products
986B 981 5
The definition of unfair trade practice  in section 36 A is not inclusive or flexible but specific and limited in its contents
The object is to bring honesty and truth in relationship between the manufacturer and consumer
When a problem arises as to whether a particular act can be condem ned as an unfair trade practice or not the key to the solution would be to examine whether it contains a false statement and is misleading and further what is the effect of such a representation made by the manufacturer on the common man Does it lead a reasonable person in the position of a buyer to a wrong conclusion The issue cannot be re solved by merely examining whether the representation is correct or incorrect in the literal sense
The position will have to be viewed with objectivity in an impersonal manner
985A D Halsbury s Laws of England 4th Edn paras 1044 and 1045 relied on
The erroneous description of the manufacturing Compa ny in the advertisements in question does not attract section 36 A of the MRTP Act
986B