Misleading deposit advertisements can amount to an unfair trade practice and prejudice public interest when they promise unrealistic returns.

A financial advertisement that projected unrealistic yields on deposits, suggested a long-term deposit structure the company was not entitled to maintain, and gave no dependable assurance of repayment was treated as misleading and deceptive, bringing it within the concept of an unfair trade practice under the Act. The same solicitation was also found prejudicial to public interest because it induced public deposits on doubtful returns and exposed investors to possible loss or injury, even if actual harm was limited in the case described. Injunctive directions against repeating such representations were warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned advertisement amounted to an unfair trade practice under section 36A(1)(iv) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. (ii) Whether the trade practice was prejudicial to public interest under section 36D(1) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned advertisement amounted to an unfair trade practice under section 36A(1)(iv) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The advertisement projected an unrealistic yield on deposits, suggested a long-term deposit structure that the company was not entitled to maintain, and offered no dependable assurance for repayment after the stated period. The representation conveyed performance and benefits that the financial service did not actually possess, bringing the advertisement within the statutory concept of an unfair trade practice based on misleading or deceptive statements.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the trade practice was prejudicial to public interest under section 36D(1) of the Act.

Analysis: A financial solicitation inducing public deposits on the basis of doubtful returns, without proper repayment assurance, was held to carry the risk of loss or injury to investors. The practice was therefore treated as harmful to the public, even though the actual harm in the present case was limited.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The advertisement was held to be misleading and to constitute an unfair trade practice affecting public interest, warranting injunctive directions against repetition of such representations.

Ratio Decidendi: A financial advertisement that makes unrealistic return promises and represents benefits or performance not actually available constitutes an unfair trade practice and is prejudicial to public interest.

---