Temporary injunction under Monopolies law requires prima facie proof, public interest and injunction principles before restraining advertising claims.

Temporary injunctions under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act could be granted only during an inquiry and only on a substantiated prima facie foundation showing likely prejudice to public interest, traders or consumers. The discretionary power had to be exercised on principles akin to interlocutory injunctions, including balance of convenience, irreparable injury and adequacy of damages, without deciding the merits at the interim stage. An incidental advertising expression unsupported by pleaded material or evidence of consumer deception could not sustain restraint, and an analogy to unrelated foreign facts was misplaced. The interim injunction was therefore held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim injunction granted under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1961 in respect of the impugned advertisement was justified.

Analysis: Section 12A permits temporary injunction only during an inquiry and only when the relevant practices are proved on affidavit or otherwise and are likely to prejudicially affect public interest or the interests of traders or consumers. The power is discretionary and is to be exercised on principles akin to interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 2A to 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, adequacy of damages and the need to avoid pronouncing on the merits at the interlocutory stage. The complaint before the Commission was confined to the claims of germ fighting, stopping bad breath and fighting tooth decay, while the expression in question was only incidental. No material showed that the impugned expression had been independently pleaded or substantiated as an unfair trade practice, and no evidence of consumer deception was recorded. The order also rested on an inapposite comparison with a foreign case involving an invisible shield, without factual similarity. Delay in challenging a long-standing advertisement and the circumstances suggesting a counterblast further undermined the basis for interim relief.

Conclusion: The interim injunction was not justified and could not be sustained. The appeal by the advertiser succeeded, while the complainant's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The Commission's interim restraint was set aside because the statutory and equitable requirements for temporary injunction were not made out on the materials then available.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim injunction under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1961 can be granted only on a substantiated prima facie foundation, after considering balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest, and cannot rest on an incidental allegation unsupported by material or on a misplaced analogy with unrelated facts.

---