European Commission (EC) and on the relationship between UK media/ information education, regulation model derived from publications from the EC, COST/ANR, UNESCO and the UK regulator, Ofcom. National Lottery. About to take. posavski-obzor.info https://www. posavski-obzor.info PDF | On Mar 15, , V C K Doku and others published National Lotto Act, Act
It will be seen that the promoter of the scheme i. The member whose number becomes the lucky number in. The member who gets the scooterette in the second draw gets it for RS.
Section 2 1 a of the State Act, The Lottery Niyantran Tatha Kar Adhiniyam,defines "lotterry" to mean "a scheme for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets.
Section 3 of the Act declares all lotteries excepting those organised by the Central Government and the State Government of Madhya Pradesh to be unlawful.
Provision is made in Section 6 for licensing private lotteries. Section 6 1 provides that a private lottery shall be deemed to be an unlawful lottery unless the promotor thereof has obtained a licence in respect of such lottery.
Milking the situation: A beginner’s guide to lactophila | drmarkgriffiths
The Collector is the licensing authority under Section 7. Provision is made in Section 9 for suspension or cancellation of licence. The Madhya Pradesh Legislature had also enacted the M. Dhan Panchalan Skeem Pratishedh Adhiniyam. The definitions of "money circulation scheme" and, "prize chit" are contained in Sections 2 c and 2 erespectively. We are here not concerned with a money circulation scheme and, therefore, it js not necessary to quote the definition in Section 2 c.
The definition relevant for this case is of "price chit" as contained in Section 2 e which reads as follows: Conventional chit is defined in Section 2 a as under: Explanation - In this clause prize amount shall mean the amount, by whatever name called, arrived at by deducting from out of the total amount paid or payable at etch instalment by all the subscribers.
The learned counsel for the petitioner first contends that the scheme promoted by the petitioner is not a prize chit as defined in the Central Act. We are unable to agree.
We have quoted the salient features of the scheme. We have also quoted the definition of "prize chit" contained in Section 2 e of the Central Act.
Join the Largest ANR/ABF Dating Site!
Leaving aside those parts of the! The scheme promoted by the petitioner falls within this definition.
The petitioner as promoter collects from every member in a group consisting of hundred members membership fee of Rs.
The scheme is not a conventional chit which is excepted from the definition of prize chit. The definition of conventional chit as contained in Section 2 a has been quoted above. AIR Mad The petitioner's scheme was not a conventional chit. In case of a conventional chit the prize is in money and not as here, in kind. Further the prize has to be the total amount paid or payable at each instalment by all the subscribers minus the deductions i and ii allowed in the Explanation to Section 2 a which defines "prize amount".
The award of scooterette under the petitioner's scheme did not fall within the definition of prize amount as contained in the Explanation and, therefore, the scheme could not amount to conventional chit. The petitioner's scheme being a prize chit as defined in Section 2 e of the Act, its promotion was in contravention of Section 3 and clearly illegal. The learned counsel lor the petitioner next contends that as the scheme was licensed as a lottery by the Collector under the State Act, it could not be said to be illegal even if it contravened the Central Act as the subject of lottery was specifically covered by the State Act It is true that the petitioner got a licence before promoting the scheme in from the Collector under the State Act but from that it does not necessarily follow that the scheme is a lottery as defined in the Act Indeed the Collector was directed by the Director of State Lotteries to cancel the licence on the ground that the scheme was a prize chit under the Central Act and not a lottery.
The opinion of these authorities is, however, not decisive and we have to look ourselves as to whether the petitioner's scheme is a lottery and if so what is its effect. We have already stated that the petitioner's scheme is a prize chit as defined in the Central Act. We have also quoted the definitions of "lottery" and "ticket" as contained in the State Act. The emphasis in the definition of "lottery" is that it is a scheme where persons participate in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets.
Now, in the petitioner's scheme, there is no purchase of ticket by the members. A person is entitled to become member by paying membership fee of Rs.
Unfair Trade Practice Relating To Promotional Prize Schemes - Consumer Protection - India
A member, as already seen, for being entitled to participate in the chances of a prize has to go in making monthly contributions of Rs. This feature of the scheme, in our opinion, takes it out of the definition of lottery in the State Act. But even assuming that the scheme can come within the definition of lottery, yet the petitioner cannot be allowed to run it for being a prize chit as defined in the Central Act he cannot promote it in violation of the provisions of that Act.
Prize chit is really a form of lottery. To quote its words "Prize Chits would cover any kind of arrangement under which moneys are collected by way of subscriptions, contributions, etc. In that case the Supreme Court accepted the submission of the Union of India that by enacting the Act "Parliament wanted to restrict and prohibit certain types of contracts because of the noxious element of gambling and lottery implicit therein and the incidental impact on lotteries did not affect the vires of the Act pp.
Parliament's power to make laws with respect to any of the matters in List III which is conferred by Clause 2 of Articles of the Constitution is "notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 3 " which confers exclusive power on the State Legislature to make laws with respect to any of the matters in List II.
Further the power of the State Legislature to make laws on any of the matters enumerated in List II as conferred by clause 2 of Article is subject to clauses 1 and 2 of the same Article under which Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I and concurrent power to make laws with respect to any of the matters in List III.
Petitioner company was indulged into unfair trade practice by 1 Alluring the consumers to purchase multiple packs of its product by inducing them to believe that the second half of the picture might be available in the subsequent pack purchased by them, 2 By not disclosing the terms and conditions attached to the Scheme to the consumers, 3 By holding a draw for selecting the winner of the prizes and 4 By not printing the date of closure of the Scheme on the wrapper of the product.
In Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. MRTP Commission2, the following additional requirements were laid down: In re Avon Cycle Pvt. Unknown4, the company advertised a scheme offering 42 prizes on the basis of a lucky draw.
The company attempted to justify the scheme on the basis that it was financed out of the profits of the company and not by increasing the prize. The scheme was held to be unfair trade practice prejudicial to public interest for several reasons. The conduct of lotteries, contests etc. When the essential consideration of quality and prices are lost sight of, consumer and public interest suffers.
The award of prizes, benefits only a miniscule number of consumers. Discriminatory benefits of this kind to a select few without any corresponding benefit to or, as often happens at the expense of the bulk of the consumers is obviously not in the overall interest of the consumers. On the other hand, the same amount, if utilized for the purpose of reducing prices or providing better services to the consumers, in general will enhance consumer satisfaction.
The practice of offering prizes by lottery tends to encourage the gambling instinct leading to unnecessary, avoidable and excessive purchases by consumers for the purpose of gaining entry into the lottery. Such available and excessive purchases are the real loss to the consumers.
Instead of protecting consumer's interest, lotteries and contests therefore, clearly act in a prejudicial manner in regard to consumer and public interest. The following practices such as disclosing the terms and conditions of the scheme, disclosing the relevant time period, disclosure of the date for the announcement of the scheme, disclosure of the methodology to choose a winner, disclosing the chances of winning a prize in a scheme etc. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.