The power of courts and some tribunals to grant interim injunctions can be used with devastating effect. This is because litigation in India normally takes several years to conclude. Therefore, the parties have to live with the so-called interim order for a long time.
Some time ago, the power claimed by consumer forums to pass injunctions against public issues of companies created panic in corporate circles. The Supreme Court brought serenity by ruling that consumer forums have no power to hold back public issues (Morgan Stanley vs Kartick Das). Two months ago, the Supreme Court passed an order critical of the Calcutta High Court for passing an interim order staying an advertisement for a whitener in a case between Jyothi Lab and Reckitt & Colman.
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission seems to be a soft option in the marketing wars between companies. In the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court last week, the commission attracted some critical remarks (Colgate vs Hindustan Lever). The case was one episode in the continuing battle between the toothpaste giants. First, Hindustan Lever went to the Advertising Council of India complaining about the ad for Colgate Dental Cream. It was rejected. Then Colgate filed a complaint before the MRTPC against Hindustan Lever `s claim that its New Pepsodent was 102 per cent more effective in fighting germs than its rival. As a counteroffensive, Hindustan Lever filed a complaint before the commission alleging that the ad for Colgate Dental Cream was an unfair trade practice.