https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106536 Actual loss or injury to consumers was treated as an essential element of an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The statutory language was read literally, and the phrase "and thereby causes loss or injury" was held to be integral to the definition rather than surplusage. The later deletion of those words was treated as confirming that, at the material time, consumer injury had to be proved. The interpretative approach relied on both the literal rule and the mischief rule, with the result that a contest promoting sales could not be brought within Section 36A without proof of actual consumer loss or injury. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106536 Actual loss or injury to consumers was treated as an essential element of an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The statutory language was read literally, and the phrase "and thereby causes loss or injury" was held to be integral to the definition rather than surplusage. The later deletion of those words was treated as confirming that, at the material time, consumer injury had to be proved. The interpretative approach relied on both the literal rule and the mischief rule, with the result that a contest promoting sales could not be brought within Section 36A without proof of actual consumer loss or injury. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106536