Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)62CompCas98NULL
1. E. Merk (India) Ltd., respondent, is a joint stock company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Bombay. The said company is manufacturing medicines and appoints dealers for the sale of the same. The appointment of dealers is on terms and conditions contained in an agreement entered into between the respondent on the one hand and every one of the dealers on the other hand. The respondent filed a copy of such agreement for registration with the Director-General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as "the Director-General"), under Section 35 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The Director-General found that the agreement contained, inter alia, the following term : "We have pleasure in appointing you as our preferred dealer at Calcutta for supplying our products to institutions in Calcutta and suburban towns (excluding D. H. S. C. M. S. West Bengal G. M. S. C., C.G.H.S. and Railways) on the following ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)62CompCas61NULL
1. This is an enquiry under Section 37 read with Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, instituted pursuant to an application filed by the Director-General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") against M/s. Coromondal Prodorite Limited (hereinafter referred to as " the respondent"). It is alleged that the respondent has appointed distributors on terms and conditions contained in the agreement executed by the said distributors with the respondent. A copy of the specimen agreement entered into with them by M/s. Kaypee Chem, is on the file as annexure "A". M/s. Kaypee Chem is the sole distributor for the sale of products of the company and for procuring contracts in the State of Maharashtra. By virtue of the agreement dated August 25, 1984 (annexure "A"), M/s. Kaypee Chem was appointed as sole distributor for the period between August 2, 1984, to August 1, 1986.The applicant has impugned Clauses 2(b) and 6(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)61CompCas734NULL
1. This enquiry has been instituted under Section 36B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, on the basis of the findings given in the preliminary investigation report submitted by the Director (Research) in compliance with this Commission's order under regulation 35(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974.2. It is alleged in the notice of enquiry that the advertisement issued by the respondent in Dainik Vishwamitra, dated October 9, 1985, announcing the sale of goods at throwaway prices, is an unfair trade practice as denned in Sub-section (2) of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.3. The notice of enquiry was received back with the remarks that the respondent is not residing at either of the two addresses to which notice was sent by Registered A.D. The Commission was satisfied that it was not possible to serve the notice on the respondent in any other manner except under Order 5, Rule XX...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)61CompCas488NULL
1. The respondent, M/s. Nirma Chemical Works, is one of the manufacturers of detergent soaps and powder and is marketing its products under the brand name "Nirma". It published an advertisement in the Hindustan Times of August 17, 1984, about the introduction of dealers' discount scheme for the sale of Nirma washing powder with effect from July 1, 1984. The cash discount rates which were effective from July 1, 1984, were as under : 2. The Commission directed investigation by the Director-General (I. & R.) if restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(o) or Section 33 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, was being indulged in on account of allowing of the aforesaid discriminatory discounts on off-take. Shri G. Saran, Additional Director, made a report dated September 2, 1985, the operative portion of which reads as under: " The trade practice of allowing discriminatory discounts linked with quantum of off-take by the stockists is, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)61CompCas624NULL
1. This is an enquiry under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, instituted on an application made by the Director-General (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") against M/s. Simpson and Co. Ltd., Madras (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"). The respondent company manufactures and sells Simpson automotive and agricultural/industrial diesel engines, spare parts and accessories thereof. It is stated by the applicant that the respondent appoints dealers for the sale of its products by a dealer agreement which has to be executed by each dealer so appointed. The applicant has taken exception to Clause 5 of this agreement which reads as follows : "The dealer shall carry such minimum stock fixed by the distributor from time to time. The distributor shall fix from time to time in consultation with the dealer the quantum and/or net value calculated at the dealer's buying prices of the products for which the dealer shall place orders wit...
Tag this Judgment!