Earlier, on a complaint filed by Colgate-Palmolive, MRTPC had restrained HLL from claiming that `Pepsodent' was 102 per cent superior to the leading brands in the market.

The commission had also constituted an expert committee to test the veracity of the claim made by Pepsodent saying that it involved technical issues. HLL had challenged MRTPC order in Supreme Court. But, the apex court dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the interim order saying that the injunction order passed by MRTPC was for a specified period till expert committee submitted its report.

Following the refusal of Supreme Court to interfere with it, the matter came back before MRTPC. Meanwhile, one of the members of the committee Michael Cole, whorepresented HLL, wrote a letter to chairman, Justice A N Divecha seeking certain clarification from MRTPC.

The commission passed an order directing the expert committee to carry out a clinical study of Pepsodent in context of fighting long-term plaque and gingivitis against which HLL filed a petition before Delhi High Court.

HLL, in its petition, alleged before a division bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar and Justice Manmohan Sarin that MRTPC had enlarged the scope of the expert committee "illegally, arbitrarily and erroneously."

The company said the claim made in its advertisement was restricted to anti-bacterial superiority and inclusion of long-term plaque and gingivitis were beyond the scope of notice of inquiry.

Colgate counsel Ashok Desai and Raian Karanjawala submitted that the advertisement had been designed to make people believe that its 102 per cent anti-bacterial superiority would effectively prevent all dental problems and ailments including long-term plaque and gingivitis.

Appearingon behalf of consumers, Iqbal Chagla alleged that HLL's advertisement was misleading and had little to do with what they actually claim.

Colgate counsel said that the data provided by HLL did not support the claim that Pepsodent was 102 per cent superior to the Colgate dental cream.

Colgate also questioned the maintainability of the HLL petition as under Section 55 of MRTP Act, as appeal lies to Supreme Court.