<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (8) TMI 742 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104225</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2020 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 742 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104225</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>