Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission mrtpc Page 8 of about 105 results (0.081 seconds)

Director-general Vs. Spring Steel Ltd. and ors.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1991)71CompCas679NULL

..... down by the supreme court, that, when shares are not in existence, they cannot be called "goods" within the meaning of section 2(e) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. it was also held that allotment of shares does not amount to purchase of the same.20. in the light of the clear ..... trade or carrying on trade in shares. (iii) shares before their actual allotment, do not constitute "goods" within the meaning of section 2(e) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act and, therefore, publishing of promotional material for applying for allotment of shares did not constitute or amount to a trade practice within the ..... does allotment of shares amounts to their purchase within the meaning of section 2(o)(ii) and section 33(1)(b) and (g) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act 17. according to the definition contained in section 2(e) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, shares and stocks were undoubtedly goods but the main question was .....

Indian Newspaper Society Vs. Indo-japan Photo Films Co. Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... an agreement within the meaning of section 2(a) of the act. (d) it has not been specified by the commission as to how rule 56 can be regarded as being prejudicial to public interest or to the ..... of rule 56 of the rules and regulations governing accreditation of advertising agencies which was framed by this applicant. on the application of respondent no. 1 under section 12a of the act, an ex parte temporary injunction was issued against the present applicant restraining the operation of rule 56 of the aforesaid rules framed by the applicant and also ..... sine qua non, namely :-- (b) the commission did not state as to how rule 56 of the accreditation rules in any manner attracted the provisions of section 33(1)(d) of the act. (c) the commission erroneously proceeded on the assumption that rule 56 amounts to an agreement without specifying as to how rule 56 could be regarded as .....

Director-general of Vs. Waldies Limited

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1991)71CompCas575NULL

..... 1988] 63 comp cas 102 held that allowing discriminatory discount/rebate to authorised dealers and the accredited dealers will be restrictive trade practice within the meaning of section 33(1) of the act. it was pointed out therein that, in some cases, including cases of a larger turnover, the authorised dealer was allowed bonus at a much larger ..... with a view to meet competition varying between rs. 100 to rs. 300 per metric tonne at the discretion of the respondent. clause (e) of section 33(1) of the act covers "any agreement to grant or allow concessions or benefits, including allowances, discount, rebates or credit in connection with, or by reason of dealings' and ..... reply to this application denied and disputed the contention that the aforesaid clause contained a restrictive trade practice within the meaning of clause (e) of section 33(1) of the act. it was further pleaded that the practice as envisaged in the impugned clause of the agreement is not restrictive in nature and in any case .....

Mrs. Bandana Chadha and ors. Vs. Sheri-louise Slimming Centre

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1991)70CompCas712NULL

..... compensation, if any, is the applicant entitled 16. the applicant has claimed a sum of rs. 4,07,110 in his application under section 12b of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. in support of this, the applicant has placed his own affidavit before the commission. in para 4 of the affidavit, he has stated ..... dated february 19, 1987. the names mentioned are :-- 14. in view of the clear admission of the respondent in the application under section 36d (2) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act filed in enquiry no. 23 of 1985, we hold that the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices and the undertaking of ..... and, thereafter, respondents nos. 5 to 8 filed an application before the commission in that enquiry (enquiry no. 23 of 1985) under section 36d(2) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. in that application, respondents nos. 5 to 8 which includes the present respondent clearly stated that they are willing to undertake such terms .....

indo-japan Photo Films Co. Ltd. Vs. Indian Newspaper Society and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1990)68CompCas134NULL

..... to a very considerable extent. the business of the complainant is publicity based.3. the prayer of the complainant in his application under section 12a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act is : (a) that operation of the rule 56 of rules and regulations governing accredition of the advertising agencies issued by the ..... clear liability to pay the newspapers even if its client has not paid.5. this rule is prima facie violative of section 33(1)(d) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act and is prima facie a restrictive trade practice. if ex parte injunction is not issued immediately, it may result in irreparable ..... a complaint filed by the complainant, indo-japan photo film co., under section 10(a) read with section 37 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969. the complaint is filed against respondent no. 1 which is a society registered under the societies registration act, 1860, having as its members most of the major newspapers and periodicals .....

Director-general of Vs. Sahara India Saving and

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1990)68CompCas153NULL

..... [1989] 66 comp cas 519 as well as while dealing with the interpretation of the definition of unfair trade practice as given in section 36a of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act made the following observations (page 524 of 66 comp cas) : ''does it lead a reasonable person in the position of a ..... and misleading and that the respondents were indulging in unfair trade practices within the meaning of clauses (ii) and (iv) of section 36a(1) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. vide that order, an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the respondents from advertising or in any "manner publicising the high sounding ..... 1, 1987. the director-general also attached a copy of the application form distributed by the respondents along with his application under section 36b(c) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act.4. according to the director-general, as alleged in the aforesaid application, the respondents were indulging in unfair trade practices by .....

Director-general of Vs. AlarsIn and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1990)68CompCas663NULL

..... the impugned clause 11.8. i, therefore, hold that the respondents are and have been indulging in restrictive trade practices.9. section 38 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act further provides that a restrictive trade practice shall be deemed to be prejudicial to the public interest unless the commission is satisfied ..... i have gone through the aforesaid agreement and impugned clause 11 of the agreement. this clause clearly violates clause (e) of section 33(1) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act as it allows discriminatory discount depending upon the quantity purchased by the dealers from him. with effect from august, 1984, every agreement ..... contention of the director-general in his application is that the aforesaid clause 11 in the agreement is violative of clause (e) of section 33(1) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act and as such constitutes a restrictive trade practice.4. finding a prima facie case, a notice of enquiry, dated april 4, .....

J.P. Sharma Vs. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... there is also clearance under section 22 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act to establish a new undertaking. ril has also got approval for manufacture of 50,000 tonnes per annum of hdpe with permission to ..... context, it may be mentioned that ril has approval for the manufacture of 1,00,000 tonnes per annum of pvc with permission under section 22 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act for the establishment of a new industrial undertaking. ril has also approval for manufacture of 60,000 tonnes per annum of meg for which ..... cannot be transferred, sold, hypothecated till the end of three years from the date of allotment is not a ground either under section 36a or under section 2(o) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act which can, by any raison d'etre, be agitated by the complainant. rather it is wholesome that the individual shareholder is .....

Director-general of Vs. National Institute of

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... for issue of an ex parte temporary injunction. in view of rule 3 of order xxxix, civil procedure code, which is applicable on account of section 12a(2) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, an ex parte injunction can be issued if delay in issuing the same will defeat the very purpose. in this case, the ..... by the institution.14. there is also a trade practice in the present case. the word " trade practice " is defined in section 2(u) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act which means any practice relating to the carrying on of any trade. obviously, the practice of running an institution for the trade of ..... indian express (madras edition), dated january 7, 1988. photostat copies of those advertisements are annexures i and iii to the application under section 36b(c) of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act. the respondent also issued a prospectus, photostat copy of the relevant extracts of which is annexure ii.3. the director-general received a .....

In Re: Excel Industries Limited

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1988)64CompCas531NULL

..... observations of the supreme court are reproduced below (at page 867): " the broad effect of the application of the basic principle underlying section 106, evidence act, to cases under section 167(8) of the act, is that the department would be deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial or direct, ..... such restriction. we are afraid that in the present case the balancing clause thwarts the attempt of the respondents to escape through the gateways under section 38(1) of the act. we think that the fci, even though a preponderant purchaser, is entrusted with one of the most nationally important jobs, namely, procurement, storage ..... 8, 1985 2. if issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents, are the respondents entitled to avail of any of the gateways provided in section 38(1) of the act 4. the following witnesses appeared before the commission for examination-in-chief, cross-examination and production of documents : 4. shri kirti kumar, under secretary .....