Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ80MRTP
1. On a complaint received from the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Soap and Detergent Manufacturers' Association, Madras, the Director General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as DG), was directed to make an investigation in regard to the allegations against the parties namely Reliance Industries Limited, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) and Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited, Madras (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2). In the preliminary investigation report submitted on 20.12.1990 the D.G. has mentioned that from November, 1987 to November, 1990, the prices of Linear Alkaline Benzene (in short LAB), fixed by both the parties moved in tandem within short span of time as is evident from the following : 2. During the period under relevance, LAB a basic raw material required for the manufacture of synthetic detergent products was produced by three companies namely, M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL), M/s. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ45MRTP
1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants/ complainants.The grievance of the applicants/ complainants is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 14 have been using, the names and logo of the applicants/complainants, on their sign boards, stationery and publicity material without the approval of the applicants/complainants and this trade practice attracts the provisions of Section 36A(i), (iv) and (v) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the basis of the aforesaid complaint made by the applicants/complainants, an enquiry was instituted and a Notice of Enquiry dated 15.7.1997 was issued to all the respondents.2. It has been brought to our notice that during the pendency of the enquiry, all the respondents except respondent Nos. l, 7 and 8 discontinued the aforesaid-trade practice. It has been stated that respondent Nos. 1, 7 and 8 neither entered appearance nor filed a reply to the Notice of Enquiry despite several opportunities given to them.It has also b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ50MRTP
1. M/s. Jain Hardware & Mill Store, Ajmer filed a complaint against M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and M/s. V.K. Hardware Store, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The Director General (Investigation and Registration) (DG in short), investigated the matter and submitted a Preliminary Investigation Report (FIR) and later a supplementary FIR on direction given by the Commission. A prima facie case having been made out, the Commission issued a Notice of Enquiry (NOE) to the respondents under Section 10(a)(iv) read with Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (referred to as the MRTP Act, hereafter).2. In the NOE, it has been alleged that respondent No. 1, in association with respondent No. 2, has been indulging in the following restrictive trade practices : (a) Respondent No. 1 was marketing its product 2 years back through various dealers in Ajmer District. Subsequently, it stopped supplying goods to all local dealers of Ajmer except M/s. V.K. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ46MRTP
1. We have heard both the learned Advocates representing the applicant and the respondent on the issue of maintainability of the present proceeding. The applicant, is stated to have invented a device, named "GASFEST" and it is claimed that with the use of this device, saving of 40% of LPG can be obtained. The applicant approached the respondent for getting the device tested in its laboratory. The respondent accordingly, is stated to have got this LPG saving device tested in its laboratory at Dehradun. According to the report, submitted by the laboratory, the device does not show any fuel saving. It has also been stated that the respondent is a registered Society under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The respondent, in its reply, has stated that as the Petroleum Conservation Research Association is an association run, managed and controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the present proceeding is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 3(a) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The Director General (Investigation and Registration) has made an application under Section 10(a)(iii) read with Section 36B(c) of the MRTP Act 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondent, the India Habitat Centre with adoption of and indulgence in unfair and restrictive trade practices and stating therein, that Shri U.K.Choudhary, who is a practising Advocate and the past President of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, had applied for admission as a member of the India Habitat Centre and also paid Rs. 500/-alongwith the application form, but was not enrolled as a member and was also not informed whether his application was under consideration or it had been rejected.2. Similarly, a complaint has also been made by Shri Sunil Gulati with an identical grievance. It has been stated by him in his complaint petition that he is a law graduate, a chartered accountant and was nominated to the Council of the Institute of Costs and Works Accountants of India (1995-98) and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This order will dispose of two applications filed under Section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for issuance of an interim injunction against the respondents.2. The applicant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 10(a)(iv) read with Section 37, Section 2(o)(ii) and Sections 33(l)(a) and 33(l)(i) of the Act in respect of the alleged restrictive trade practice undertaken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for boycotting or compelling the retailers/traders to boycott the applicant's/complainant's products and also for interfering with the distribution and sale of the products. It is contended that the applicant/ complainant is suffering irreparable damage, injury and loss as a direct consequence of the actions of the respondents and as such they should be restrained from compelling or interfering in any manner with the distribution and sales of the complainant's products. In an application filed under Section 12A of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The complainant is an Association of State Road Transport Undertaking (ASRTU) which is an apex body stated to be representing the interest of 67 State Road Transport Undertakings. It has its registered office at New Delhi and functions through various Standing Committees, which in turn are constituted by the General Body. The respondent No. 1 is one of the manufacturers of valves for internal combustion engine and not valve guide. The latter items are traded in by it. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand is a leading manufacturer of valves for I.C.engine in the country.2. On 17.1.1995 both the parties submitted their tenders on the stated prevailing published prices. The tenders of both the parties were considered at 175th meeting of S.C. (S&C) held in Guwahati in the month of April, 1995. Decision to accept the contract of both the respondents was communicated to the parties vide letter dated 9th November, 1995.Offer was also sent to both the firms. However, the offer was not f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ53MRTP
1. Shri Arvind Sharma, s/o Shri Srikishan Sharma, r/o Bungalow No.L-189, Railway Colony, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, filed an application for institution of enquiry under Section 36-B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 [the MRTP Act for breif] against M/s. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan (RFC for short) and M/s. Angira Heavy Engineering Industries, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, for the unfair trade practices indulged in by them. It has been stated that the informant/complainant set up an industrial unit in the small scale sector for manufacturing/processing of granite tiles. He obtained a loan of Rs. 5.60 lakhs in October, 1989 from RFC for financing the same. With the said loan the informant/complainant also purchased two machines from the respondent.The informant/complainant having defaulted in the payment of laon, RFC initiated recovery proceedings against him under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ47MRTP
1. Shri Arvind Sharma, s/o Shri Srikishan Sharma, r/o Bungalow No.L-189, Railway Colony, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, filed an application for institution of enquiry under Section 36-B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief), against M/s. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan (RFC for short) and M/s. Angira Heavy Engineering Industries, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, for the unfair trade practices indulged in by them. It has been stated that the informant/complainant set up an industrial unit in the small scale sector for manufacturing/processing of granite tiles. He obtained a loan of Rs. 5.60 lakhs in October, 1989 from RFC for financing the same. With the said loan the informant/complainant also purchased two machines from the respondent.The informant/complainant having defaulted in the payment of loan, RFC initiated recovery proceedings against him under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act ...
Tag this Judgment!