Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission mrtpc Page 1 of about 105 results (0.552 seconds)

Director General (investigation Vs. Boomi Bottling Gas Company Pvt.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : I(2003)CPJ107MRTP

..... of the sale of the products of other parties nor qua the purchaser or seller other than the respondent. prohibition in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the act as it reads is total in regard to the goods other than those of the seller or any other person. as stated, this is also in accordance ..... well to avoid the storage of spurious cylinders of other parties. it is also required in terms of the permission given by the department of explosives for storing cylinders at a particular place. the act of the respondent to avoid possible injury or damage to the consumers can in no manner be dubbed as unreasonable. clause 21 of the agreement ..... with the requirement of the department of explosives for storing the products, at a particular place for which the permission is to be sought. otherwise too one cannot possibly .....

Director General (investigation Vs. Modi Alkali and Chemicals Limited

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... the belief of creation of artificial scarcity.the products being hazardous material are governed by various rules and regulations under the factories act; explosive acts; manufacture, storage and import and hazardous chemicals rules, 1989; environment protection act; gas cylinders rules, 1981 and similar enactments. the increase in demand of the products from cpw units, paper industry, ..... ors., reported in 1976 (46) (calcutta) companies cases 619. thus, the objection in regard to the complaint being anonymous is not valid.7. section 37 of the act in turn speaks of an enquiry to be made by the commission into any restrictive trade practice adopted or indulged in by any party, which is prejudicial ..... was, however, of the prima facie view that the case needed enquiry and, therefore, directed the issuance of notice of enquiry under section 10(a)(iv) and section 37 of the act read with regulation 51 of the m.r.t.p. commission regulations, 1991.4. issuance of notice of enquiry has been objected to .....

Mrs. A. Nandini Sarma Vs. Kkr Palm Oil (India) Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : III(2004)CPJ9MRTP

..... false assurances were given. since the subsequent correspondence on the subject yielded no results, the applicant perforce had to file a complaint without mentioning section of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the act) with the following prayers : (3) appropriate compensation for the expenses incurred by us in pursuing the matter with the company. (4) appropriate compensation .....

Director General (investigation Vs. Jayant Paper Mills Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : I(2004)CPJ22MRTP

..... and registration) was of the opinion that the impugned clauses contained in the agreement need to be deleted or altered. accordingly an application under section 10(a)(iii) read with section 33 of the act was filed with the prayer that the respondent be directed to cease and desist from following such restrictive trade practices. in the alternative the ..... has been rendered on either side. the respondent was heard ex parte as he failed to address arguments on the stipulated date. its application filed under section 13(2) of the act stood rejected for the reasons stated in a detailed order of 12th december, 2003.4. we have considered the material brought on record on both sides ..... aware of the prices they are supposed to pay at the time of purchase.6. these clauses definitely come within the purview of section 33(1)(e) and section 33(1)(f) of the act respectively. accordingly the respondent is to be restrained from following such practices and continuing the same in future.7. on the facts and .....

Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : I(2004)CPJ7MRTP

..... mrtpc) to establish its locus standi for filing the present petition.6. learned counsel for the respondent contended that under section 3(1) and section 2(a)(viii) of the essential commodities act, 1955, the central government was fully empowered to issue the impugned circular and the respondent being under the administrative control ..... suffered financial loss.2. in its reply, the respondent has denied the allegations of restrictive trade practices and has contended that section 3(1) of the essential commodities act, 1955, empowers the central government to maintain or increase supplies of any essential commodity for securing its equitable distribution. it has ..... been further submitted that under section 2(a)(viii) of aforesaid act, petroleum and petroleum products are included within the definition of 'essential commodities' and in exercise of the powers thus vested with .....

Director General of Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : I(2004)CPJ10MRTP

..... show as to how the difference in the time schedule allowed for payment of dues tantamounts to manipulation of conditions of delivery or price as envisaged in section 2(o) of the act, we may also state that as held by their lordships of hon'ble supreme court of india in the case of smt. parvati devi v. rajasthan ..... kendriya bhandar and canteen store department vis-avis stockists/distributors. these practices are contended to be restrictive trade practices as covered under section 2(o) and section 33(1)(e) of the monopolistic trade practices act (in short "act). it is prayed that inquiries be instituted against the said respondents and cease and desist order be passed against them.2. in ..... view that notice of enquiry needs to be discharged on the facts as brought on record as well for the reason given in the paragraphs hereinafter. section 33(1)(e) of the act reads as under : (1) [every agreement falling within one or more of the following categories shall be deemed, for the purposes of this .....

Director General (investigation Vs. Byford Leasing Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : III(2004)CPJ1MRTP

..... further highlighted by non-representation of proceedings which have continued for a considerable period of time. thus the allegations of unfair trade practice covered under section 36a of the act stand established. these are prejudicial to public interest.5. as to the contention that the trade practice has since been stopped and as such ..... after making inquiries submitted a preliminary investigation report dated 11.11.1993 recommending inquiry against the respondent. accordingly, noe was issued under sections 36a, 36b(d) and 36d of the act for the alleged unfair trade practices against the respondent.2. pursuant to the notice of enquiry, the respondent admitted its liability to ..... dg was asked to serve the notice dasti. subsequently the dg furnished an application under regulation 65(1)(i) of the mrtpc regulations, 1991 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 stating therein that as per the information furnished by the registrar of companies, delhi & haryana, the company .....

Director General (investigation Vs. Uptron India Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : I(2003)CPJ154MRTP

..... rise to these proceedings and the points of law and facts involved are identical in both the cases.2. the applicant has filed compensation application under section 12-b of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 for recovery of a sum of rs. 4,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 31.3.1990 ..... facie case having been made out, a notice of enquiry was issued in u.t.p.e. no. 5/96 and a notice of compensation under section 12-b of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 was issued in c.a. no. 3/96. the following issues were framed in these inquiries ; (1) whether the respondent is or has ..... of the respondent to honour its commitment to pay the deposited amount to the applicant/complainant, is a deficiency in service amounting to unfair trade practice as defined in section 36-a of mrtp act, 1969. the respondent is accordingly directed to cease the said unfair trade practices and desist from repeating the same in future.the respondent is further .....

Bhim Sen Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : I(2003)CPJ124MRTP

..... of not only gross negligence, it is also guilty of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of section 36a(1) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (the act for brief) in so far as it made a misrepresentation or false representation to the complainant that a flat would be allotted ..... to him but failed to offer the allotment and failure on the part of respondent also tantamounts to deficiency in service. section 2(r) of the act spells out definition of service and "service" envisages dealings in real estate. thus the present grievance of the complainant attracts the provisions of ..... section 36a(1) of the act and the impugned trade practice also appears to the prejudicial to the interest of the consumer.therefore, the respondent is directed to discontinue the aforesaid .....

Director General (investigation Vs. Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : II(2003)CPJ61MRTP

..... 7.1997 : 3. the practice of allowing differential rates of discount is contended to lead to the distortion of competition which is squarely covered under section 33(1)(e) of the act. the respondent therefore needs to be restrained from following the restrictive trade practice.4. the defence of the respondent as gathered from its reply is ..... adoption of and indulgence in the restrictive trade practices falling under section 33(1)(e) read with section 2(o)(ii) of the act. it is the contention of the dg that the respondent who is the distiller and sells india made foreign liquor under the brand ..... cost on the unfavoured customers which tends to impair competition". the enquiry was recommended under section 37(1) read with sections 2(o)(ii) and 33(1)(e) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the act).2. a notice of enquiry dated 27.2.1998 was issued charging the respondent with .....