Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ44MRTP
1. The applicant/complainant has made a complaint charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices and stating therein that he purchased an Eicher Tractor, model 'Gold 352', Double Cylinder from the United Tractors and Engineers (respondent No. 4) for Rs. 87,000/- and it was delivered to him on 7.4.1986. It has also been stated that the tractor, in question, was covered by warranty for a period of 365 days or 1000 working hours, whichever was earlier. The grievance of the applicant/complainant as set out in the complaint petition is that the tractor, in question, was defective and even though it was repaired and serviced from time to time, the defects were never fully removed. It has been complained that it had the following defects : (a) The cooling system, is defective, does not work, could not be brought in order by the local dealer inspite of the repeated efforts. Consequently, the engine becomes heated just within half an hour of the start of wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ174MRTP
1. The present complaint arises under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The main grievance of the informant is stated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint which may be referred to as below : "6. On 16th and 17th June, 2000, the complainant purchased 10 and 24 bottles of 'Pepsi' each containing 300 millilitres of sweetened aerated water. Copies of the bills of purchase of the said 'Pepsi' bottles are filed herewith. 7. On taking delivery of the bottles, he examined the caps which are used for sealing the said bottles. To his surprise, the caps mentioned the date of manufacture as 7/2000 i.e., July, 2000 certifying that the contents of the bottles were best before/upto January, 2001. This was on the 16th and 17th of June, 2000. Two samples of the caps are filed herewith. 8. The petitioner-complainant states that the respondents because of their huge control over the carbonated sweetened water market have sold a large number of such bottles in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ176MRTP
1. The learned Counsel for the respondents states that the rights inter se the parties are governed by an agreement dated 21st September, 1989 which is filed as Annexure-3 to the reply alongwith the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner. This agreement admittedly contains an arbitration clause (H) which is part of the agreement. It is, therefore, contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that the appropriate remedy for the applicant/petitioner is to take recourse to a remedy of arbitration as provided in the agreement. The applicant/petitioner is in possession of the plot, which was allotted by the respondents and is the subject-matter of the present proceedings. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner has not opposed the suggestion of learned Counsel for the respondents that the matter can be appropriately decided by an arbitrator as may be appointed under the terms of the agreement.2. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The learned Counsel for the respondents states that the rights inter se the parties are governed by an Agreement dated 21st September, 1989 which is filed as Annexure -3 to the reply along with the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner. This agreement admittedly contains an arbitration Clause (H) which is part of the Agreement. It is, therefore, contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that the appropriate remedy for the applicant/petitioner is to take recourse to a remedy of of arbitration as provided in the agreement. The applicant/petitioner is in possession of the plot, which was allotted by the respondents and is the subject matter of the present proceedings. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner has not opposed the suggestion of learned Counsel for the respondents that the matter can be appropriately decided by an Arbitrator as may be appointed under the Terms of the Agreement.2. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. In its application filed before the Commission, the applicant has stated that pursuant to the representation made in the advertisement as well as in person, the applicant made a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- towards security to the respondent i.e. Ask Me Information Services Limited as under: (1) Rs. 5,000/- vide D. D. No. 222831 dated 5-3.1999 drawn on Bhatinda Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2) Rs. 15,000/- paid by Cheque No. 4569710 dated 25.3.1999 drawn on Bank of India. (3) Rs. 15,000/- vide Cheque No. 4569717 dated 26.4.1999 drawn on Bank of India. (4) Rs. 15,000/- vide Cheque No. 4569718 dated 29.4.1999 drawn on Bank of India.This was towards security for its appointment as a Network Sales Associate for the Bhatinda area. On discovery that as a result of non-cooperation on the part of the respondent, the services offered had a poor public response, it decided to end the deal with the respondent.It accordingly approached the respondent for refund of its deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ102MRTP
1. The applicant applied for allotment of a flat under the "1985 Sixth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme" introduced during the period May 25, 1985 to August 14, 1985 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards registration charges. The applicant was allotted a flat at Narela, Block A-5 A6, Pocket B-4 at a cost of Rs. 6,09,900/- vide Communication No. 170(0136)/ 91/SFS/NA/III dated 10th July, 1991. It requested for cancellation of the allotment vide letter dated 26th August, 1991 and paid a sum of Rs. 4,169/- by way of penal interest and cancellation charges. As per the option exercised, the registration amount was allowed to be retained with the respondent Authority.Another Scheme followed which opened on 22nd December, 1992 and closed oh 11th January, 1993. Under this Scheme, the registrants of 5th and 6th Self Financing Scheme could give their choice of preference for the flats to be allotted. Yet another Scheme was introduced in the year 1995 wherein the prospective registrant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ49MRTP
1. The present complaint has been filed under Sections 36B(a) and 10(a)(i) of the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent in the month of March, 1998 floated a Residential Scheme by the name of "Swarn Nagri" in Sector 31, Greater Noida situated near Surajpur-Kasna Road, Distt.Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and invited the general public through newspapers and other media to apply for residential plot in the aforesaid scheme @ Rs. 1,600/- per sq. mtr. The applicant obtained an application form and the Brochure at a cost of Rs. 250/- for making an application to the respondent for allotment of a plot. It is submitted by the complainant that the respondent has represented inter-alia that the residential plots would be allotted to the applicants @ Rs. 1,600/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the complainant was required to pay a total amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- for a plot of 200 sq. mtrs. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- as Registration Fee was depos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ109MRTP
1. In three separate complaints filed in UTPE 93/1997, UTPE 126/1997 and UTPE 127/1997, a common grievance has been expressed against the respondent i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is the contention of the complainants that charging interest on various instalments along with the very first instalment of payment from the complainants is unjustified specifically in absence of any development carried out on the plots stated to have been reserved for them.2. Briefly listed, the facts which are common to all the complaints are that pursuant to the Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave Scheme launched by the respondent Authority, the complainants applied for allotment of plots to the respondent. The registration charges as demanded were deposited as under : Vide letters dated 20th February, 1993 issued in U.T.P.E. No. 93/1997 and U.T.P.E. 127/ 1997 and 12th February, 1993 in U.T.P.E. No.126/1997, they were informed that the plots were reserved under Scheme Code 634 and Property Code 7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ12MRTP
1. In three separate complaints filed in U.T.P.E. 93/1997, U.T.P.E.126/1997 and U.T.P.E. 127/1997, a common grievance has been expressed against the respondent i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is the contention of the complainants that charging interest on various instalments along with the very first instalment of payment from the complainants is unjustified specifically in absence of any development carried out on the plots stated td have been reserved for them.2. Briefly listed, the facts which are common to all the complaints are that pursuant to the Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave Scheme launched by the respondent Authority, the complainants applied for allotment of plots to the respondent. The registration charges as demanded were deposited as under : 3. Vide letters dated 20th February, 1993 issued in U.T.P.E. No.93/1997 and U.T.P.E. 127/ 1997 and 12th February, 1993 in U.T.P.E. No.126/1997, they were informed that the plots were reserved under Scheme Code 634 and Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ26MRTP
1. The brief facts of the case as incorporated in an application filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) under Section 10(B) read with Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are stated in paragraphs (i) to (vi) of the application which will be referred to as below : "(i) The telephone subscribers are kept ignorant of the fact that the telephone bills include capital contributions for which the consent of the subscribers was not taken. (ii) The telephone rentals and other charges are raised almost periodically without consulting anybody. (iii) The MTNL has started charging local calls on time basis (1 call for 5 minutes each) just like long distance calls on the plea that long duration calls are congesting the network. (iv) MTNL keeps security deposits, OYT deposits, STD deposits etc. Without paying any interest to the subscribers from the time a connection is given until the same is surrendered by the subscriber. (v) The telephone...
Tag this Judgment!