Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: cantonments act 1924 section 195 felling lopping and trimming of trees Court: monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission mrtpc

In Re: Food Specialities Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1991)71CompCas564NULL

..... it may be that sale of a package containing contents of quantity lesser than what is mentioned on the container may amount to a contravention of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) act or the rules framed thereunder, but the implementation of the said act or the rules is not within the jurisdiction of this commission unless there is an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.13. ..... hence, the notice of enquiry alleged that the respondent had indulged in unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36a(4) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, "causing loss or injury to the consumer" 4. ..... it was contended on behalf of the respondent that contravention of the provisions of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977, in so far as they related to the quantity of the packages did not attract the provisions of section 36a(4) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. ..... if it causes only loss and does not involve the risk of injury, then, in our opinion, it does not amount to an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36 a (4) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. ..... the question is whether sale of such a sachet by the respondent or someone on its behalf constitutes an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36a(4) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.6. .....

Director-general of Vs. Universal-luggage

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1987)62CompCas184NULL

..... we have carefully gone through the director-general's applications under sections 12a and 36b(c) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act and we are of the view that prima facie the aforesaid assertions and claims made by the respondent in the advertisement and the prospectus, are unrealistic, factually incorrect and, therefore, misleading. ..... thus, the respondent seeks a notice of the application made by the director-general under section 12a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act before the commission decides the question of granting temporary injunction. ..... this is an application filed by the director-general (investigation and registration) under section 12a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, read with order 39 of the civil procedure code for grant of temporary injunction against m/s universal luggage manufacturing co, ltd. ..... further, it may also be mentioned that the provisions of the civil procedure code have been applied only to some extent by section 12(1) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.section 148a is not included in those provisions. ..... so, in this case, the commission has to follow the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act as against all inconsistent provisions of the civil procedure code like section 148a.that being so, ex parte injunction can be issued in accordance with rule 3 of order xxxix, civil procedure code, read with sub-section (2) of section 12a. .....

In Re: Johnson and Johnson Ltd. and

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1988)64CompCas394NULL

..... as the petitioner was not a trade or consumer association having a membership of not less than 25 persons, the commission proceeded under section 10(a)(iv) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, and directed the then additional director-general (investigation) to investigate and submit a preliminary report within 60 days, vide its order dated july 11, 1985, under regulation 19(2)(c) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices regulations, 1974. ..... if there is diminution of competition, it is only in respect of a small area and both clause (h) and the balancing clause of section 38 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act will apply even if, by any stretch of imagination or logic, the charge of predatory pricing could be proved. ..... johnson and johnson in response to the four tenders floated by the director-general, armed forces medical services, the armed forces medical services depot, delhi cantonment and the director-general, supplies and disposals, madras, on january 15, 1983, august 25, 1984, november 9, 1984, and november 13, 1984. ..... weavesurge internationa], delhi (weavesurge), were indulging in predatory pricing in their quotations for their products to the director-general, armed forces medical services (dg afms) and the armed forces medical services depot, delhi cantonment, with a view to eliminating competition from small manufacturers like the complainant. .....

Society for Civic Rights Vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1991)72CompCas80NULL

..... such contests fell within clause (b) of paragraph 3 of section 36a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.6. ..... it was mentioned in the notice of enquiry that the commission had received a complaint from the society for civic rights under section 36b(a) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act alleging that the respondent was indulging in the unfair trade practice of permitting the conduct of a contest known as "colgate trigard family good habits contest". ..... should have been heard by a single member, but noticing that any interpretation of section 36a enquiry or part thereof might affect a large number of matters which are pending before the commission and which are likely to come up before the commission and further noticing that some of the judgments touching upon the interpretation of section 36a(3)(b) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act are not wholly consistent with each other, it was directed that this ..... in conclusion, it holds that the contest in this case organised by the respondent is covered by clause 3(b) of section 36a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (for short, "the act"), and is an unfair trade practice which is also prejudicial to the public interest. .....

In Re: All India Organisation of

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... boycotts are nothing but refusal to deal, plain and simple which is statutorily recognised to be per se a restrictive trade practice under section 33(1)(a) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.but it is the pejorative impact on competition brought about by boycotts that has been meriting attention not only in india, but elsewhere particularly the american courts. ..... while boycotts are actions constituting refusal to deal and thus attract section 33(1)(a) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, it has to be seen whether they also fall within the mischief of section 2(o) of the act. ..... an associate argument put forth by shri mariarputham is that in terms of section 51 of the indian contract act, 1872, if a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise. ..... (e) the gateways provided in section 38(1)(b) and (h) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act are available to the third respondent. ..... (d) article 19(1)(g) of the constitution confers a fundamental right on every citizen to practise any trade or business and the right to carry on business includes the right not to carry on business and thus the alleged restrictive trade practice cannot be brought under section 2(o) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Centron Industrial Alliance Pvt.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1978)48CompCas813NULL

..... on the other hand, the courts in that case were also confronted with the same difficulties of the language of the act; section 38(1) of the indian act is a replica of section 21(1) of the uk act and the provisions in the indian act empowering the commission to direct the party not to repeat the restrictive trade practice is comparable to the provisions in the uk act empowering the court to make an order restraining the party from making any other agreement to the like effect. ..... objection against the maintainability of the application--that there was no allegation in the application about the operation of the agreements and the circumstances resulting therefrom.according to him, before the commission could take cognizance of the application under section 10(a)(iii) of the act, it must contain facts which constitute the alleged restrictive trade practice, and if the alleged trade practice related to the clauses of the, agreement it was incumbent on the registrar to set out the ..... the registrar alleged that the clauses impugned by him resulted in restrictive trade practices of the following nature attracting the provisions of sections 33(1)(a), (c) and (g) of the act : (i) restricting the persons to whom goods may be sold or from whom goods may be purchased ; (ii) restricting the agents from dealing in the products of the respondent's competitors; (iii) restricting the party concerned to make investments or instal .....

Director-general Vs. Voltas Ltd. and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1994)79CompCas274NULL

..... although the restrictive trade practice(s) alleged in these enquiries are covered within the definition of section 33(1)(a) and (c) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), yet it would be appropriate to give some details of each enquiry highlighting the product(s) manufactured by the respondents other than voltas and which are marketed/sold by the respondent, m/s. ..... contrary to this, the clauses of the agreement falling under one or the other clauses of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the act are per se restrictive trade practices and there is a presumption under section 38(1) that they are against public interest. ..... the respondents in these proceedings have stated that it is to be seen whether by having such an arrangement any competition is restricted in the relevant trade or industry of machine tools, and if so, whether it is so effective to any material degree within the meaning of section 38(1)(h) of the act and whether removal of such restriction would not deny to the public the benefits which are available on account of the appointment of an exclusive distributor within the meaning of section 38(1)(b) of the act.49. ..... 637 of 1987), where the clauses of agreement covered under clauses (a) and (e) of section 33(1) of the act, in the rest of the enquiries, as also stated above, the clauses of the agreements pertain to violation of clauses (a) and (c) of section 33(1) of the act.34. .....

Director-general of Vs. Food Specialities Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1987)62CompCas122NULL

..... it is submitted by shri ravinder narain, learned counsel for the respondent, that according to sub-section (3) of section 36d of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, no order can be made under sub-section (1) in respect of any trade practice which is expressly authorised by any law for the time being in force. ..... be that as it may, the fact remains that it is not the statement of objects and reasons relating to sub-section (4) of section 36a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, which we are called upon to interpret in the course of this enquiry. ..... it is stated that the packing of tomato ketchup in bottles of 400 grams contravenes item 18(a) of rule 5 of the third schedule to the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977, and, therefore, it attracts the provisions of section 36a(4) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.the director-general made this application on january 23, 1986. ..... national taj traders [1980] 121 itr 535 (sc) : "we are not entitled to read words into an act of parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the act itself," we feel that the wording of sub-section (4) of section 36a is plain, unambiguous and clearly points to the object behind it. ..... in interpreting a section of an act the purpose of the act and the object of the particular section have to be borne in mind." 12. .....

In Re: Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... , in re [1993] 1 ctj 167, dated july 3, 1989, that "doubtlessly section 36a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, will come into play not as a legislation super-ordinary or supererogatory to the relevant law concerning liquor advertisements but only where the quality, standard or composition and uses and benefits of a product are given out to be such as are not possessed by it".20. ..... , in re, [1994] 2 ctj 64, dated november 12, 1993, to support his contention that before a "cease and desist" order is passed under section 36d(1) of the act, it has to be proved affirmatively that the unfair trade practice is prejudicial to public interest. ..... a notice of enquiry (noe) was, therefore, issued on february 2, 1988, under sections 36b(d), 36a and 36d of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, charging the respondent with having indulged in certain unfair trade practices within the meaning of section 36a(1)(i) and (vi) of the act. ..... the cologne advertised is neither a drug within the meaning of section 2(b) nor a magic remedy within the meaning of section 2(c) of the drugs and magic remedies (objectionable advertisements) act, 1959. ..... it is not open to the commission to treat the contraventions or supposed contraventions of other statutes as unfair trade practices under the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, when specific remedies and punishments for such contraventions are provided in those enactments. 6. .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. United Breweries Ltd. and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1989)65CompCas656NULL

..... application under section 10(a)(iii) read with section 37 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969, for enquiry into restrictive trade practices which fall under sub-clauses (a) and (g) of sub-section (1) of section 33 and section 2(o) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. m/s. ..... 's agreement of uk, in re, [1962] lr 3 rp 119, referred to by learned counsel, clause (b) of section 21 of the uk restrictive trade practices act was under consideration.needless to say clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 38 of our act corresponds to clause (b) of section 21 of the uk act. ..... clause 12 of the agreement otherwise too is to be regarded as relating to a restrictive trade practice under the deeming provisions of sub-section (1) of section 33 without even reference to the provisions of section 2(o) of the monopolies and restrictive trade pratices act. ..... the affirmative, then whether the said trade practices are restrictive trade practices within the meaning of section 2(o) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (3) if the answer to issue no. ..... a common reply to the notice of enquiry in justification of the restrictions pleading, in the alternative, that the said restrictions cannot be regarded as detrimental to public interest by virtue of clauses (b) and (h) of sub-section (1) of section 38 read with the balancing clause thereunder.4. ..... and the agreement had been approved by the government of india under section 294aa of the companies act .....