Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission mrtpc Page 10 of about 105 results (0.071 seconds)

Sivakasi Chamber of Match Vs. Western India Match Co. Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... thai the powers of the commission were very much circumscribed, it had only limited powers of a civil court, that these powers were defined in section 12(1) of the act and beyond these powers the commission did not have any power of the court. he also pointed out that no doubt the commission had powers to ..... the case was concerned with the powexs of the income-tax appellate tribunal and it was held that the powers which had been conferred by section 254 of the i.t. act on the appellate tribunal must carry with them by necessary implication powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully ..... done. this question has to be decided in the light of the provisions in the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act and the monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission regulations, 1974, section 10(a)(i) of the act empowers the commission to inquire into any restrictive trade practice upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such practice .....

In Re: Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1979)49CompCas238NULL

..... in its decision dated february 25, 1975 in [1976] 46 comp cas 395 (mrtpc) in the matter of raymond woollen mills ltd. (j.k. engineering division) sections 10 and 37 of the act referred to an "inquiry" into restrictive trade practices. there is a material difference between an " inquiry " and a " trial ". the literal meaning of the " ..... nor did it allege that the commission had any actual knowledge or information of its existence so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the commission under section 10(a)(iv) of the act.5. it may be pointed out that by another application dated november 8, 1976, the respondent had requested that it should be furnished with ..... an order quashing and discharging the notice of enquiry dated 29th september, 1976. according to the respondent, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the commission under section 10(a)(iv) of the act, two conditions must be fulfilled, viz., that, (i) there must exist a trade practice which is restrictive, and (ii) the commission must have .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1978)48CompCas837NULL

..... the manner in which it was made. this has to be read with regulation 85, which reads as under : " 85. an application under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the act for amendment or revocation of any order made by the commission in any proceedings shall be supported by evidence on affidavit of the material change in the ..... it was also pointed out that the agreement dated 8th july. 1975, was forwarded by respondent no. 1 to the registrar for purposes of registration under section 35 of the act. it was claimed that the restrictive trade practices complained of by the registrar in respect of the impugned agreement were discontinued by the respondents and were not ..... with or by reason of dealings.he prayed that the commission may be pleased to inquire into the restrictive trade practices indulged in by the respondents under section 37 of the act. the proceedings were accordingly initiated by the commission and on account of the defaults of both the respondents nos. 1 and 2 at different stages of .....

In Re: R.S. Vatcha (President,

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1978)48CompCas791NULL

..... record relating to the affairs of the state. he has stated that he realised the solemnity and significance attached to the exercise of the power under section 123 of the indian evidence act and the privilege was not being claimed on the ground of expediency or to avoid an embarrassing or inconvenient situation or because it was apprehended that ..... of the national council of applied economic research on the economics of retailing high speed diesel oil and motor spirit along with a claim of privilege under section 123 of the indian evidence act. it was stated by the officer producing the report that the commission was at liberty to see the report for determining the claim of privilege. ..... v. raj narain, air 1975 sc 865.it has been held in this case by the supreme court that the foundation of the law behind sections 123 and 162 of the indian evidence act is the same as in english law. it is that injury to public interest is the reason for exclusion from disclosure of documents whose contents, .....

In Re: Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... the suit was disposed of in september, 1975, having been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. normally, documents have to be proved by production of documents themselves under section 62 of the evidence act. section 65 permits secondary evidence to be given when the party offering evidence cannot, for reasons not arising from his own default or neglect, produce such documents ..... the same is not prejudicial to the public interest in view of the instances set out in clauses (b), (f) or (h) of sub-section (1) of section 38 of the act and the said practice is not unreasonable having regard to the balance between the said practice and the detriment to the public, if any 56. regarding resale ..... the same is not prejudicial to the public interest in view of the instances set out in clauses (b), (g) or (h) of sub-section (1) of section 38 of the act and the said practice is not unreasonable having regard to the balance between the said practices and the detriment to the public, if any after the statement .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Allied Distributors and Company and

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... one month's notice in writing to the company be entitled to engage in the marketing of such items and products produced by other manufacturers.under section 38(1) of the act, these practices are deemed to be prejudicial to public interest. otherwise also there is no material on record which would entitle the respondents to pass ..... are absent and we must proceed ex parte.12. we might perhaps mention that on 11th march, 1974, the respondents had applied for an order under section 37(2) of the act. by our order dated 18th july, 1974, we had held that the said application was premature and the proper stage for considering the said application ..... ) and the balancing clause thereof.7. we, therefore, fixed this matter for hearing on 21st november, 1975, to enable the respondents to establish the circumstances under section 38(1) of the act. neither the respondents nor their advocates on record appeared on the day fixed for the hearing. we, however, adjourned the matter to 5th december, 1975, and .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Usha Sales Private Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... restrictive trade practice. the learned counsel for the registrar very fairly stated that she relied on the legal implications of the clause itself for invoking section 2(o) of the act and that allowing for all the facts stated by the respondents as correct, still the clause as it stood had or may have the effect ..... 11th december, 1974, wherein he contended that the clauses 2 and 5 of the agreement did constitute restrictive trade practices within the meaning of section 33(1) read with section 2(o) of the act, inasmuch as they related to territorial restrictions and exclusive dealings in respect of the sale of the respondents' products. it was also contended ..... any of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (h) read with the balancing clause of sub-section (1) of section 38 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act in respect of such restrictive trade practices 5. thereafter, affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents for further and better particulars asked for by .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Chandan Metal Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... find that these trade practices may have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition and would satisfy the definition of restrictive trade practices in section 2(o) of the act. that clauses 1, 4 and 15 of the agreement annexed to the registrar's application shall be void in respect of the restrictive trade practices ..... by the registrar. at the hearing, however, mr. hathi for the respondent submits that his clients are prepared to submit to an order under section 37(1) of the act on the assumption that restrictive trade practices exist. in view of this we find it unnecessary to go into the amendments suggested by the respondent or ..... of the said agreement which are set out in the application constitute restrictive trade practices. the registrar prays that necessary orders be passed against the respondent under section 37(1) of the act.3. the respondent filed its reply on 16th march, 1975. the registrar filed rejoinder thereto on 6th may, 1975. thereafter, at the instance of .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Steel Age Industries Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1976)46CompCas607NULL

..... in the trade of steel furniture or equipment manufacturing and marketing and it is not likely to impede competition.in our opinion, this practice will be covered by section 38(1)(h) of the act and we propose to make no order with regard to the said practice.7. in the result, we direct that clause 10 of the agreement shall stand ..... clause 11 to differential discounts. he contends that these are restrictive trade practices within the definition of that term in section 2(o) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as " the act "). he prays that necessary action be taken against the respondent.2. the respondent has filed its reply to the application .....

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Ex-cello India Ltd. and ors.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1976)46CompCas605NULL

..... restricting competition.7. the registrar has complained that clause 12(a) of the agreement constitutes the restrictive trade practice of resale price maintenance within the meaning of section 33(1)(f) of the act. we, however, do not agree with him because clause 3 9 of the agreement provides that the distributor shall be at liberty to sell the goods ..... trade from acquiring or otherwise dealing in any goods other than those of respondent no. i. these fall under section 33(1 )(c) of the act.5. we also find that clauses 17(a) to (h) of the agreement restrict or are likely to restrict persons or class of persons to whom goods ..... 5, and 20(a) allocate an area to each distributor for the disposal of goods. these clauses fall under section 33(1)(g) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as " the act"). we also find that clauses 6 and 25(a) and (b) restrict each dealer in the course of his .....