Its time for moving on to the judgement.

We have heard both the counsels for plaintiff and defendants.

The court has examined in detail the submissions were submitted by both parties.

Civil suit number 242 of 2021 arising out of under sections 17, 39(1)(l),
39(1)(m) and 39(1)(n) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The issues to be discussed herein are:

1.Whether the Defendants TVC/ Advertisement misleads the Consumers?

In the present case Defendants TVC/ Advertisement misleads the Consumers.

Reason behind Judgement-

Considering the code of conduct in 1985 of Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) which
specifies certain guidelines to be kept in mind while promoting their goods through advertisements. It
states that:

- There must be honest representations;

- The advertisement must not be offensive to the general public;

- The advertisement should not be used for the promotions of products, hazardous or harmful to society
or to individuals particularly minors and to a degree unacceptable to the society at large;

- An advertisement must not hamper competition in anyway.So Comparative advertising is permissible,

with respect to certain limitations as to unfair trade practices which are imposed by S. 29(8). S. 30(1)
strengthens its position.here in this case the advertisement misleads the consumers.

2. Whether the Defendants TVC/ Advertisement disparage the Plaintiffs product and
tarnish their image?
In the present case Defendants TVC/ Advertisement disparage the Plaintiffs product and tarnish their image.

Reason behind judgement;

The false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another’s product or
business..

The referred the case Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. No one can disparage a class or genre
of a product within which a complaining plaintiff falls and raise a defence that the plaintiff has not been
specifically identified.

3. Whether a TVC/Advertisement be protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian

Constitution as a form of speech?
TVC/Advertisement be protected under Article 19(1)(a).but Right to Freedom of Speech u/a 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution is only available to a citizen of India and not to a corporate entity like the Defendant.
Reason behind judgement;
Article 21 of the Constitution was available to every person but the rights u/a 19 of the Constitution were
available to the a citizen of India only.the defendant did not have any inherent right under art 19(1)(a).
The referred case Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited and Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others[7], the
Supreme Court held that a company, being not a citizen, has no fundamental rights under Article 19 of the
Constitution. A company not being a citizen has no fundamental right under Article 19.

JUDGEMENT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER

With this state of case, it is concluded that there the Defendants TVC/ Advertisement misleads the
Consumers.The Advertisement disparage the Plaintiffs product and tarnish their image.The Art 19 is available
only citizen not to corporate body. He was not able to prove that the advertisements is not misleading. SoThe
plaintiff is entitled to injunction orders and interim relief.The plaintiff is entitled to get the sum of RS 1,000000
as compensation from the defendant.