UTP broadly refers to any fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest trade practice; or business misrepresentation of the products or services that are being sold; which is prohibited by a statute or has been recognised as actionable under law by a judgment of the court .

1. BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENT
• UTKARSH BATRA
• VINAYAK GUPTA
• VARSHA KHUSHWA
• VISHAL P. JAUDAN
• YASH KHANDELWAL
• YASH BAJAJ

2. UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICES
(Section2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

3. DEFINATION
UTP broadly refers to any fraudulent,
deceptive or dishonest trade practice; or
business misrepresentation of the products
or services that are being sold; which is
prohibited by a statute or has been
recognised as actionable under law by a
judgment of the court

4. In India Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines
UTP to mean a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the
sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service,
adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, and includes,
inter alia, the following:
• making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible
representation which:
• falsely represents about goods or services relating to its standard,
quality, price, value, nature, etc.;
• gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade
of another person;

5. • permitting the publication of any advertisement for
the sale or supply at a bargain price of goods or
services not intended to be so offered;
• permitting the offering of gifts, prizes or other items
with the intention of not providing them as offered;
• withholding from the participants of any scheme
offering gifts, prizes or other items free of charge, on
its closure the information about final results of the
scheme;
• permitting the hoarding or destruction of goods; and
• manufacturing spurious goods or offering such goods
for sale or adoption of deceptive practices in the
provision of services.

6. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
(INDIA)

7. 7
MRTP Act, 1969
• Till 1984 no provisions for protection against UTPs
• Amendment in the MRTP Act in 1984, pursuant to Sachar Committee, to include UTP
provisions
• 1984 amendment also introduced the position of DGIR which worked along with
MRTPC, with power to take suo motu actions
• Repealed upon introduction of Competition Act, 2002
Consumer
Protection Act,
1986
• Upon introduction of the Competition Act, the UTP provisions
transferred from the MRTP Act into the COPRA
• Victims of UTP entitled to take recourse of the three-tier quasi-judicial
bodies under COPRA
Competition Act,
2002
• Introduced pursuant to Raghavan Committee’s recommendations
• Competition Commission of India established with effect from October
14, 2003, including Director General for Investigation

8. WHY ARE UTPs BAD…..
Frequent and widespread incidences of UTPs in India due to:
• Introduction of globalisation;
• Technological innovations;
• Lack of consumer awareness
UTPs found in almost all the sectors, including:
• Pharmaceutical sector
• Education sector
• Food sector
Misleading advertisements most common form of UTP practiced across
all the sectors (study by CUTS CART)
UTPs in a market may have the following effects
• Impact on price and quality of goods and services
• Impact on micro, small and medium enterprises
• Impact on Consumer Confidence and trust
8

9. 9

10. 10

11. ABOUT THE CASE
• On June 5, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) ordered Nestle India to withdraw all nine variants of Maggi
instant noodles from the market terming them “unsafe and
hazardous” for human consumption.
• Maggi ban started with the first phase of inspection in Barabanki,
Uttar Pradesh, from where the food inspector allocated a batch of 12
Maggi packets to the research lab in Gorakhpur. After detection of
some harmful chemicals, the batch was then transferred to the
Kolkata.
• where the presence of excess lead and MSG (monosodium
glutamate) was confirmed.
11

12. • It was confirmed that 17.2 ppi of lead was contained in the Februrary
2014 manufactured batch of Maggi packets which was 8 times higher
than the permissible limit range of 0.01-2.50 ppi. Where in Delhi, the
samples of Maggi were detected with a lead level of 3.6.
• MSG increases the body MSG level by 20% which is harmful for
humans especially children.
• Nestle India has its own argument regarding the MSG content in
Maggi. They claim that the MSG found in Maggi is not added by
them which they clearly mention in the Maggi packets as “NO
ADDED MSG“.
• It is also challenged by Nestle India that out of the 1000 samples
inspected of the 12.5 crore Maggi packets, the found lead content on
an average does not exceed the prescribed level of lead content.
12

13. DATA STUDY
Most of the customers
consume Maggi because of
its taste, so the company
should maintain the
previous and should also
follow strict safety
measures by taking
consumers health into
consideration.
13
12%
57%
19%
6%
6%
imp.factor to choose maggi
brand name
12%
taste56%
price18%
health6%
other8%

14. DATA STUDY
So Most of the consumers
are against the ban on Maggi
noodles and its other
products, and because of this
It will be easier for the
Maggi to re-launce and
retain its brand value in
market again.
14
yes
64%
no
36%
perception about ban

15. DATA STUDY
Consumers want Maggi to
be re-launched with
improved safety standards
and monitoring system,
that ensures health safety
and nutrition .
15
88%
12%
re-launch
yes
no

16. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• Nestle recalled it’s Maggi inventory, so that this issue
doesn’t hamper the sales of other Nestle products.
• Nestle’s share went down by upto 17%.
• The recall exercise of Maggi noodles has cost Nestle
Rs.320 crores and another Rs.1270 crores in brand
loss.
• Ban on Maggi incurred standalone loss of 64.40 crore
rupees.
16

18. 18