https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102456 False and misleading investment advertisements promising to double invested money, coupled with acceptance of funds through a formal arrangement and dishonour of the first cheque for insufficiency of funds, fell within the statutory concept of unfair trade practice under clauses (iv) and (viii) of section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The material showed inducement to invest without any intention to honour the promise, supporting liability for the practice. Compensation was allowed for proved pecuniary loss on the documentary record, with interest and costs, but the claim for mental agony was rejected for want of reliable evidence. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102456 False and misleading investment advertisements promising to double invested money, coupled with acceptance of funds through a formal arrangement and dishonour of the first cheque for insufficiency of funds, fell within the statutory concept of unfair trade practice under clauses (iv) and (viii) of section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The material showed inducement to invest without any intention to honour the promise, supporting liability for the practice. Compensation was allowed for proved pecuniary loss on the documentary record, with interest and costs, but the claim for mental agony was rejected for want of reliable evidence. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 31 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102456