Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.