Delhi District Court
Easy Trip Planners Ltd vs Advertising Standards Council Of India on 26 April, 2025
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN - II, DJ-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No.: 217/2022
Easy Trip Planners Limited
223 FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-110092 .......PLAINTIFF
versus
1. Advertising Standards Council Of India
402/A, AURUS Chambers
SS Amrutwar Marg
Worli, Mumbai - 400013
2. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Through Joint Secretary (P&A)
M/O Information & Broadcasting,
Room No.552, A wing Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-01.
3. Ibibo Group Private Limited
19th Floor, Epitome Building No. 5
DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III .......DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of suit : 16.04.2022
Date of pronouncement of order : 26.04.2025
ORDER
1. Vide this Order I shall dispose of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC for restraining the defendants from giving effect to or acting upon the recommendation dated 25.03.2022, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the present suit.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR JAIN
ANKUR Date: 1 of 15
JAIN 2025.04.26
17:11:26
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
Brief Facts:-
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Plaintiff herein is a listed company incorporated in the name and style of "Easy Trip Planners Limited"; that defendant no.1, Advertising Standards Council of India (hereinafter also referred to as "ASCI") is an independent self-regulatory organization constituted to examine and investigate complaints received from consumers and public including its members with regard to any breach of ASCI's code of conduct qua the advertising standards and recommend action to be taken in this regard; that the Plaintiff is not a Member of the Defendant No.1 Company.
3. It is further averred that Defendant No.2, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is entrusted with the task of disseminating information about government policies, schemes and programs through different medium of mass communication, covering radio, television, press, social media, printed publicity like booklets etc. and the defendant no.1 is required to send its recommendations to the defendant no.2 for its implementation; that Defendant No.3, IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited company and is engaged in the business of online travel related bookings and is a direct competitor of the plaintiff.
4. It is further stated that Defendant No.3 is a Member of the Defendant No.1 and that the Defendant No.3 has allegedly filed a false and fabricated Complaint against the Plaintiff with the Defendant No.1 to harm the reputation and business interest of the Plaintiff; that the present suit has been filed for seeking declaration in respect of the recommendations dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Defendant No.1 in 2 of 15 Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.04.26
17:11:31
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
Complaint No.2202-C.4352 (hereinafter referred to as "Complaint") thereby asking the plaintiff to suitably modify the impugned advertisement as null and void. Hence, the present suit.
5. WS has been filed on behalf of all the defendants separately thereby challenging the averments and contentions of the plaintiff to be false and vexatious.
SUBMISISIONS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
6. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff Company works on a two-fold business model i.e. Business to Business (B2B) and Business to Customer (B2C) and is engaged in the business of providing ticket booking facility for domestic and international air travel, railway reservation, ticketing, hotel bookings, travel insurance, tours holiday packages as well as other travel and hospitality goods and services to various travel agents as well as individuals; that the said Travel business is being operated under the trade name of "EaseMyTrip.com"; that Plaintiff enjoys immense goodwill and reputation for providing unmatched services to lakhs of the Customers globally.
7. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the Plaintiff, in order to promote itself and its business, puts out advertisement with different media Platforms like print and electronic mediums such Newspapers, Magazines, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, etc., and the Plaintiff invests/spends huge amount of money, time and resources in making of Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date: 3 of 15 2025.04.26 17:11:35 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
the Advertisement, for promotion of its Business as the market of Online Booking of Travel related service is highly competitive.
8. It is also submitted by the plaintiff that the impugned Advertisement put up by the Plaintiff dated 09.02.2022 states that the plaintiff offers one of the Largest Hotel ranges and at one of the Cheapest rates and the said Advertisement ends with the Catch phrase of 'Great Hotels at Great Prices' and the said Advertisement also provides for a clear display of terms and conditions.
9. It is lastly submitted on behalf of plaintiff that at best the said Advertisement could be termed as a Puffery Advertisement and the Comparative advertisement without defaming competitor's products and services is permissible and that the actions of the plaintiff are within the limits of Advertising standards.
SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NO. 110.Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 submits that once a complaint is examined and processed by the answering defendant's Consumer Complaints Council (CCC), it only issues recommendations and in case of non-compliance by the defaulter, the only action taken by the answering defendant is to inform the concerned ministry/ department of the Government about the offending advertisement, for taking appropriate action as per law, and besides this, the defendant no.1 has no role to play in the present suit.
Digitally
signed by 4 of 15
ANKUR JAIN
ANKUR Date:
JAIN 2025.04.26
17:11:39
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
11.It is also submitted that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as the plaintiff has filed another case with similar issues against the defendant no.1 before the Patiala House Courts on similar jurisdictional grounds and by filing the present suit before this Court, the plaintiff is indulging in forum-shopping.
12. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action to seek the relief of declaration qua the recommendations made by the defendant no.1 as null and void, as the recommendations made by defendant no.1 are purely advisory in nature and they do not result in either Civil or penal consequences.
13.Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 further submits that the Plaintiff has failed to show any prima facie case or how the Defendant's recommendations have caused any harm to the plaintiff in the present suit, and even the balance of convenience does not lie with the Plaintiff, as the defendant No.1 is a self-regulatory body with no enforcement powers and its role is limited to providing guidance and adherence to the advertising standards and for ensuring that such advertisements are not misleading.
SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NO. 214.No oral submissions have been made on behalf of the defendant no.2, as no one had appeared on behalf of defendant no.2 since 25.04.2024, however in the WS, it is stated that the defendant no.1 is a non-
Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN 5 of 15 JAIN Date:
2025.04.26 17:11:46 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
Governmental Body and is not administered by the defendant no.2; and that vide order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Central Government an Inter-departmental Committee (IDC) under the chairmanship of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the IDC examine the complaints or grievances received by it and make appropriate recommendations to the Central Government and the latter may after taking into consideration the recommendations of the committee issue appropriate orders and directions U/s 20(3) of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955 for compliance by the Broadcasters, and since the defendant no.2 has not received any recommendations of defendant no.1, as alleged, therefore the defendant no.2 has no role to play in the present suit.SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NO. 3
15.Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.3 submitted that the plaintiff is incorrectly defending the impugned advertisement in issue as 'Puffery' or as protected under commercial speech as the plaintiff has not even placed the said advertisement on record in the present suit and has malafidely filed the present false suit to mislead this Hon'ble Court and therefore, the plaintiff has no prima-facie case in its favour as alleged.
16.Arguments heard from both the sides.
ANALYSIS
17.The defendant no.3 (GOIBIBO) has filed complaint against the plaintiff before the defendant no.1 (ASCI) alleging that the plaintiff has wrongly Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date:
6 of 15 JAIN 2025.04.26 17:11:50 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
claimed in the impugned Advertisement released online and on social media outlets on 08.02.2022 and 09.02.2022, that the plaintiff is the 'Largest' collection of hotels and offering 'Cheapest' rates, and the same is a misleading claim on the part of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has failed to disclose the primary and secondary source or evidence to substantiate the said claim.
18.In response to the said complaint, the plaintiff has replied to the defendant no.1 stating that in the impugned Advertisement, the plaintiff has nowhere claimed to be the 'Largest' and the 'Cheapest' and rather the plaintiff has claimed itself to be one of the largest and cheapest. It is also submitted that the catch phase at the end of the Advertisement mentions 'Great Hotels at Great Prices' with a clear display of Terms and Conditions apply, and the language used in the impugned Advertisement is nothing but a Puffery, which is permissible for enhancing the qualities of the services of the plaintiff for its consumers, as long as it does not cause any overt harm to other's products. The plaintiff has also filed the screenshots of the impugned Advertisement with the catch phase 'Great Hotels at Great Prices' at Annexure-R3 and R4 alongwith the plaint.
19.It is also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant no.3 has wrongly alleged in the complaint that the Advertisement of the plaintiff has mislead lakhs of consumers, whereas none of the consumers have filed any complaint before any authority or Court of law much less even before defendant no.1 to even allege that they were misguided by the Advertisement published by the plaintiff as alleged.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR JAIN
ANKUR Date: 7 of 15
JAIN 2025.04.26
17:11:56
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
20.It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that 'Make my Trip' is the parent group company of defendant no.3 and even they have used the similar catch phases in their respective Advertisements which has been filed at Annexure-R5 alongwith the plaint, which mentions 'Flights getting cheap, cheaper and cheapest'.
21.It is pertinent to note that the defendant no.3 did not dispute the above Advertisement of Make my Trip as stated by the plaintiff.
22.Besides Make my Trip, the plaintiff has also filed the screenshots of other Advertisements of other market players, who put out their Advertisements for selling their products and claiming them to be cheapest and biggest. For instance, 'Flipkart has used the catch phase 'India's biggest sale is back', 'Myntra' has used the catch phase 'India's biggest fashion sale', 'Gaana' has used the catch phase 'India's Favourite Music App', 'Swiggy' has used the catch phase 'Get the Biggest Offers', 'Dream11' has used the catch phase 'India's biggest sports game', 'Brand factory' has used the catch phase 'Biggest Clearance sale' etc.
23.It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned recommendations made by defendant no.1 dated 25.03.2022 pursuant to the complaint of defendant no.3, it has been observed by defendant no.1 that the plaintiff had provided the list of six different hotels listed on various platforms as well as on the platform of the plaintiff company alongwith their tariffs which shows that the plaintiff is offering cheapest hotel tariffs as compared to other similar travel companies. However, defendant no.1 has further observed that though the plaintiff has provided such comparative data, the tariff of hotels are dynamic in nature which keeps on changing every Digitally signed 8 of 15 ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.04.26 17:12:01 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
moment, and concluded that the claim of the plaintiff i.e. 'Cheapest hotel rates' was inadequately substantiative, being not supported by any independent third party validation and the claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers, and ultimately upheld the complaint of defendant no.3.
24.In this regard, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the defendant no.1 itself could not found the claim of the plaintiff offering cheapest hotel tariffs to be false w.r.t. the list of six hotels and their tariffs in comparison to the other similar travel companies, and despite observing the same, the defendant no.1 wrongly upheld the complaint of defendant no.3, in connivance with defendant no.3 (who is admittedly the member of defendant no.1/ ASCI) against the plaintiff herein (who is not the member of defendant no.1/ ASCI), and that too on the premise that the claim of the plaintiff 'is likely to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of the consumers', whereas admittedly, the defendant no.1 has not received even a single complaint from any of the consumers to state that the Advertisement of the plaintiff is misleading, as alleged.
25.It has also been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has posted the impugned recommendation dated 25.03.2022 on the social media without giving any hearing to the plaintiff w.r.t. any inadequacy of the comparative data.
26.On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 that the defendant no.3 is not disputing that Puffery is allowed as submitted by plaintiff, however, the plaintiff cannot use the words 'largest' and 9 of 15 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN Date: JAIN 2025.04.26 17:12:05 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
'cheapest' and the plaintiff can only claim its products to be 'the best', and that the defendant no.3 also has no objection to the use of the catch phase 'Great hotels at Great Prices' by the plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff does not claim itself to be offering the largest collection of hotels and cheapest rates as alleged.
27.During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 fairly conceded that as per instructions, no consumer has made any complaint against the impugned Advertisement of the plaintiff to be misleading, as alleged, nor the defendant no.1 found any data given by defendant no.3 in Para G and J of its complaint against the plaintiff to be true.
28.Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 has relied upon a judgment titled as ' Tata Press Ltd. Vs. MTNL' dated 03.08.1995 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and 'Dabur India Ltd. Vs. M/s Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. ' dated 02.02.2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, to contend that the commercial speech, which is deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful, would be hit by Article 19(2) of the Constitution and the same can be regulated by the State, and that a Tradesman is not entitled to declare his goods to be the best in the World, or better than his competitors, or that his competitors' goods are bad.
29.While relying upon the judgment titled 'Dabur India Ltd. Vs. ASCI' dated 09.01.2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 fairly conceded that the said judgment pertained to the products relating to human consumption, which is not the case in the present suit.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 10 of 15
2025.04.26
17:12:09
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
30.Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has also relied upon the judgment titled 'Metro Tyres Ltd. Vs. ASCI' dated 17.03.2017 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, to contend that the plaintiff cannot restrain the ASCI from acting upon the complaint of defendant no.3 herein. In this regard, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the said case pertained to the plaintiff seeking restraint order against the ASCI from assessing and proceeding with the complaint of MRF and the facts of the cited case do not apply to the facts of the present case, as in that case, the ASCI had not made any recommendations and had also not decided the complaint of the complainant/ MRF, whereas in the present case, the ASCI had duly upheld the complaint of defendant no.3 against the plaintiff and has also passed its recommendations against the plaintiff dated 25.03.2022 as alleged herein.
31.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the judgment titled 'Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ASC I' dated 23.01.2017 passed in CS(OS) No.458/2016, whereby the arguments and contentions of the ASCI that mere issuance of recommendations does not give any cause of action to the plaintiff/ Advertiser as the recommendations are only advisory in nature, was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; and vide order dated 24.04.2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in another suit titled 'Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ASCI' bearing CS(OS) No.1118/2015, it was observed that the recommendations issued by ASCI cannot be said to be only advisory in nature and that the advice is more or less mandatory while citing an order dated 18.09.2014 passed in CS(OS) No.2840/2014 titled as ' M/s Him Rishi Sansthan Vs. ASCI'; and that vide order dated 01.08.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in similar matter bearing CS(OS) No.104/2016 titled as Digitally ANKUR ANKUR signed by JAIN 11 of 15 Date:
JAIN 2025.04.26 17:12:14 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
'DishTV India Ltd. Vs. ASCI', the application U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of ASCI on the similar grounds was dismissed and the interim order passed in the said suit on 02.03.2016 was made absolute against the ASCI by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
32.It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that recommendations of the ASCI i.e. the defendant no.1 herein cannot be said to be merely advisory in nature as alleged, since as per the own admissions of Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1, the next logical action after issuance of such recommendations is to report to the concerned Government authority (defendant no.2 herein) for compliance, which treats the finding of ASCI as statutory.
33.It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff is not challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by the ASCI in the present matter and rather the plaintiff is alleging bias and partiality on the part of ASCI while passing the impugned recommendations dated 25.03.2022 against the plaintiff on the complaint of defendant no.3 (member of ASCI), as the plaintiff is not the member of the ASCI, and that the defendant no.1 did not pass the impugned recommendations after duly giving opportunity to the plaintiff and has also not decided the claims/ data furnished by the complainant/ defendant no.3 to be true against the plaintiff, before upholding the complaint of defendant no.3.
34.This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and has also perused the record, and it is pertinent to note that the Court only has to take a prima-facie view while deciding the present application, as the trial Digitally signed by 12 of 15 ANKUR ANKUR JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.04.26 17:12:19 +0530 Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
is yet to take place w.r.t. the adjudication of the competing claims of both the parties.
35.Vide order dated 26.10.2024 passed by this Court, it was submitted on behalf of defendant no. 3 that defendant no.3 is not challenging the maintainability of the present suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and the Ld. Counsel for the Defendant no. 1 also submitted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction may be decided later on after the trial in the present suit.
36.In 'Kent RO System Vs. ASCI', vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) No.44/24, it was observed that "advertising is a part of commercial speech which is a recognized aspect of Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. In order for any restraint to be placed on such a right, there has to be authority of law. In addition it is the settled legal position that puffery in advertisement is permissible so long as there is no deception and consumer interest is not compromised. In the present case, the complaint is not by a consumer but by a competitor i.e. TTK Prestige. No consumer has complaint that he/she is misled due to the exaggeration that the plaintiff gives the most pure water. Such exaggerations, puffery, hyperbole is part of advertising which cannot be completely curtailed, except in accordance with the law. In the field of advertising some 'play in the joints' is always recognized and permitted...as long as claims made in an advertisement are considered only as puffery, no interference with the same by the Courts would be warranted. This is for a simple reason that puffing involves expressing opinions and are not considered as statement of facts, which can be taken Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date:
JAIN 2025.04.26
13 of 15
17:12:23
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
seriously. As puffery is neither intended to make a representation as to facts nor is considered as such by the targeted audience.'
37.Admittedly, no complaint has been filed on behalf of any of the consumers to allege that they have been deceived by the impugned Advertisement of the plaintiff as alleged and it is also not the case of either of the parties that before availing the products and services of any of such OTA players including plaintiff and defendant no.3, as in the present case, a consumer has no opportunity to compare the prices or tariffs of the products or services offered by either of such OTA players in the industry.
38.Even otherwise, the impugned Advertisement is nothing but Puffery, wherein the plaintiff is only making a subjective representation about its own products and services being one of the major players in the OTA industry and is not disparaging the products and services of the other market players including defendant no.3, as alleged.
39.Accordingly, defendants are directed not to act upon or give effect to the recommendation dated 25.03.2022, in any manner whatsoever, till the disposal of the present suit.
40.The present application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC stands allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date:
2025.04.26
17:12:28 14 of 15
+0530
Suit No.: 217/2022 Easy Trip Planners Ltd. Vs. Advertising Standards Council of India and Ors.
41.Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the present case.
42.Put up for framing of issues on 02.08.2025.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR JAIN
ANKUR
Announced in the Open Court JAIN
Date:
2025.04.26
on 26th day of April, 2025 17:12:32
+0530
(Ankur Jain - II)
District Judge - 02
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
15 of 15