Summarize the following court judgment. vil Appeal No. 764 (NM) of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.1987 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 76 of 1985. G.L. Sanghi	 Parveen Anand	 S.K. Mehta	 Dhruv Mehta	 S.M. Satin and Atul Nanda for the Appellant. Anil Dev Singh and Hemant Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA	 J. This appeal under section 55 of the (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the decision of the MonopOlies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission dated November 13	 1987 in the Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 76 of 1985 passed under section 36 D(1) of the Act forbidding the appellant Company from issuing certain type of advertisement as indicated in the order. The Commission issued a show cause notice under section 36 B of 982 the Act to the appellant Company informing it that a pro ceeding had been instituted for making an inquiry whether the Company was indulging in certain unfair trade practices prejudicial to public interest within the meaning of section 36 A. A copy of the notice has been attached to the petition of appeal as Annexure 'C '	 wherein it was alleged that	 (i) although the Company was manufacturing 'Novino ' batteries in collaboration with M/s Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd	 and not with National Panasonic of Japan	 it was issuing advertisements announcing that 'Novi no ' batteries are manufactured in collabora tion with National Panasonic of Japan using National Panasonic techniques	 and (ii) the representation that 'Novino ' batter ies are manufactured by joint venture or collaboration with National Panasonic was false and misleading and thereby causing loss or injury to the consumers. In its reply the Company (appellant before us) denied to have made any wrong representation in the advertisements. It was asserted that the Company has actually entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s Mitsushita Electric Indus trial Ltd. of Japan for the manufacture of dry cell batter ies	 and was adopting the process for manufacturing 'Novino ' batteries as is employed by Mitsushita Ltd. The agreement has been duly approved by the Ministry of Industry	 Govern ment of India. It is further stated that the Mitsushita Ltd. of Japan is better known by its products described by the names "National" and "Panasonic" and there is no question of misleading anybody by the description of the Japanese Compa ny by its products. Rejecting the appellant 's explanation	 the Commission passed the impugned order. As is clear from the show cause notice	 it has been assumed that the appellant Company is manufacturing 'Novino ' batteries in collaboration with Mitsushita Ltd.	 but the question is whether	 in the circumstances	 it can claim that it is making "batteries in collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan"	 and further whether the act	 complained of	 will be covered by the provisions of section 36 B and 36~D of the Act authorising the respondent Commission to make an enquiry and issue appropriate directions. The expression "unfair trade practice" has been defined in section 36 A as a trade practice which adopts any or more of the practices enumerated in the section. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the respondent	 and the judgment 983 under appeal also holds	 that the case is covered by clauses (i) and (v) of section 36 A(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of section 36 A is reproduced below: "36A Definition of unfair trade practice. In this part	 unless the context otherwise requires	 'Unfair trade Practice ' means a trade practice which	 for the purpose of promotion the sale	 use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services	 adopts one or more of the following practices and thereby causes loss or injury to the consumers of such goods or services	 whether by eliminating or restricting competition or otherwise	 namely: (1) The practice of making any statement	 whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which	 (i) falsely represents that the goods are ' of a particular standard	 quality	 grade	 compo sition	 style or model; ' . . . . . . . . (v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier. does not have;" 4. It is the admitted position that "National" and "Panasonic" are the names given by the Mitsushita Ltd. to some of its products	 and are not the names of the manufac turing company itself. The advertisements XXX therefore	 do not state correctly when they claim that the appellant Company is working in collaboration with "National" and "Panasonic". Instead	 they should have mentioned the Company by its correct name in the advertisements. The question is as to whether these advertisement come within the scope of clauses (i) and (v). The Commission in the impugned judgment has said: "It is true that the Director (Research) has not carried out any practical research to discover how far the National & Panasonic Batteries of Japan and the Novino Batteries manufactured by the respondent company vary in or conform to quality	 benefits and durability and to what extent the use of the names Pana sonic and National to signify 984 collaboration has been confusing for the customer m his choice of Novino Battery. Yet I do feel that bearing in mind the Indian condi tions the use of National and Panasonic to signify collaboration will have a misleading effect on the minds of the common class of customers	 particularly when Novino Battery is projected in the setting of advertisement exhibit A 1/a side by side the National. Panasonic and Technics Batteries. The show cause notice served on the appellant does not take any exception to the use of the word "collabora tion" in the advertisement in question. The grievance is against the use of the names of the product "National" and "Panasonic" in place of the Company which is manufacturing them. The issue thus is confined by the charge in the show cause notice which is very limited in its scope. The Commis sion has taken note of the case of the appellant that since "National" and "Panasonic" are well known names in India while their manufacturing company	 the Mitsushita Ltd.	 is not	 the advertisements have mentioned the brand names instead of the manufacturing company; but has refused to accept this plea as a good defence. We do not agree. The 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. In the fast changing modern world of today advertising goods is a well recognised marketing strategy. The consumers also need it	 as the articles which they require for their daily life are of a great variety and the knowledge of an ordinary man is imperfect. If the manufac turers make available	 by proper publicity	 necessary de tails about their products	 they come as great help to the man in the street. Unfortunately	 some of the advertisements issued for this purpose make exaggerated and sometime base less representations about the quality	 standard and per formance	 with an object of attracting purchasers. It was	 therefore	 considered necessary to have statutory regula tions insisting that	 while advertising	 the seller must speak the truth. Accordingly sections 36 A to 36 E in part B were inserted in Chapter V of the Act by an amendment in 1984. However	 the question in controversy has to be answered by 985 construing the relevant provisions of the Act. The defini tion of "unfair trade practice" in section 36 A mentioned above is not inclusive or flexible	 but specific and limited in.its contents. The object is to bring honesty and truth in the relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer. When a problem arises as to whether a particular act can be condemned 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 can not be resolved by merely examining whether the representation is correct or incorrect in the literal sense. A representation containing a statement apparently correct in the technical sense may have the effect of misleading the buyer by using tricky language. Similarly a statement	 which may be inaccu rate in the technical literal sense can convey the truth and sometimes more effectively than a literally correct state ment. It is	 therefore	 necessary to examine whether the representation	 complained of	 contains the element of misleading the buyer. Does a reasonable man on reading the advertisement form a belief different from what the truth is? The position will have to be viewed with objectivity	 in an impersonal manner. It is stated in Halsbury 's Laws of England (Fourth Edition	 paragraphs 1044 and 1045) that a representation will be deemed to be false if it is false in substance and in fact; and the test by which the representa tion is to be judged is to see whether the discrepancy between the fact as represented and the actual fact is such as would be considered material by a reasonable representee. "Another way of stating the rule is to say that substantial falsity is	 on the one hand	 necessary	 and	 on the other	 adequate	 to establish a misrepresentation" and "that 'where the entire representation is a faithful picture or tran script of the essential facts	 no falsity is established	 even though there may have been any number of inaccuracies in unimportant details. Conversely	 if the general impres sion conveyed is false	 the most punctilious and scrupulous accuracy in immaterial minutiae will not render the repre sentation true. " Let us examine the relevant facts of this case in this background. The Mitsushita Ltd. is not a popular name in this country while its products "National" and "Panasonic" are. 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	 in our view the same 986 effect is produced by the impugned advertisements. It has to be remembered that there is no other company with the name of "National" and "Panasonic" and there is no scope for any confusion on that score. Where the reference is being made to the standard of the quality	 it is not material whether the manufacturing Company is indicated by its accurately correct name or by its description with reference to its products. We	 therefore	 hold that the erroneous description of the manufacturing Company in the advertisements in ques tion does not attract section 36 A of the Act	 although we would hasten to add that 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 names "National" and "Panasonic". The learned counsel for the respondent Commission suggested that the appellant was not entitled to claim "collaboration" with the Japanese Company on the basis of the agreement mentioned earlier. As the appellant Company is only getting technical knowledge and assistance under the agreement	 it is not permissible to claim 'Novino ' batteries as the product of joint venture. The argument was rightly repelled on behalf of the appellant on the ground that this aspect cannot be examined in the present case in view of the limited scope of the charges as mentioned in the show cause notice quoted above. If so advised	 the Commission will have to hold a fresh inquiry after issuing another show cause notice if it desires to pursue this aspect. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised several other points in support of the appeal	 one of them being that from the facts and circumstances of the case it can not be held that the impugned advertisements are capable of causing any loss or injury to the consumers. In view of our decision	 as mentioned earlier	 it is not necessary to deal with the other arguments. For the reasons mentioned above the impugned judg ment is set aside and the appeal is allowed	 but in the circumstances	 without costs. N.V.K. Appeal allowed.

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 M/s 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 M/s 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 A(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act	 1962. Allowing the appeal	 the Court	 HELD: l.(a) The M.R.T.P. 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 M.R.T.P. Act. [986B]