Trade Practice - Judgment Search Results
Hmm Ltd. Vs. Director General, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(SC)214; AIR1998SC2691; [1998]94CompCas132(SC); JT1998(5)SC433; 1998(4)SCALE490; (1998)6SCC485
Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). It held that the appellants were guilty of an unfair trade practice within the meaning of The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said … to desist from indulging in trade practices similar to that which had been held to be an unfair trade practice.2. The appellants manufacture and market consumer products, including Horlicks. In September, 1985 the appellants advertised a scheme they
Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay Vs. the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade ... Overruled
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977SC1285; [1977]47CompCas581(SC); (1977)3SCC227; [1977]3SCR455
company, of introducing the two clauses complained of, in its agreements with its stockists, amounted to a restrictive trade practice.6. The distinction sought to be made on behalf of the appellant, between a practice and clauses in a … seller and the stockist who acquires complete proprietary rights in the stock of goods purchased, is itself a trade practice. The simple question before us is : can powers conferred upon the company under such clauses be exercised
Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
Reported in: 2010CompLR43,[2010]100SCL1(Delhi)
POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO AWARD COMPENSATION.(1) Where, as a result of the monopolistic or restrictive, or unfair, trade practice, carried on by any undertaking or any person, any loss or damage is caused to the Central Government, … for the loss or damage caused to the applicant by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive, or unfair, trade practice carried on by such undertaking or other person.(4) Where a decree for the recovery of any amount as
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)515; [1999]97CompCas382(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT234; 1999(49)DRJ329
filed a complaint along with complainant No. 2, claiming to be a consumer, before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') against M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited complaining that the advertisement campaign … a complaint along with complainant No. 2, claiming to be a consumer, before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') against M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited complaining that the advertisement campaign of
Pennwalt (i) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi23; [1999]97CompCas163(Delhi); 74(1998)DLT422; 1998(46)DRJ434
payment of compensation for the loss or damage caused as a result of Monopolistic or Restrictive or Unfair trade practice carried on by him be not made. 2. Since the question involved is common in all the three … of a make different from the one approved and ordered by the respondent had thus, indulged in unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A(i),(ii),(iv),(vii) and (viii) and as a conse-quence thereof claimed a compensation of Rs.
R.C. Sood and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas626(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT272; 1996(38)DRJ118
from seeking other reliefs, has claimed compensation for loss caused to him as a result of the restrictive trade practice carried on by the petitioners.(4) The first and the second petitioners on receipt of a notice of the … or any person against whom the application has been made, had indulged in monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice as defined by section 2(i) or section 2(0) or Section 36-A of the Act, and loss or damage
Tanfac Industries Ltd., Rep. by M.H. Upadhyaya, Joint President Vs. Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT251(Mad)
valid or not. The Commission cannot prohibit import, its jurisdiction commences after import is completed and any restrictive trade practice takes place. 50. Customs duty on import of any goods is levied under the provisions of the Customs … jurisdiction under Section 37 to pass orders if such a sale was to amount to being a restrictive trade practice. For the Commission to have jurisdiction to pass such an order, whether interim or final, it must come
Sushil Kumar Dalmia and anr. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT320(HC),[1994]79CompCas568(Cal)
New Delhi, raising specific complaints regarding the issue and alleging the violation of restrictions and indulging in unfair trade practice in offering the debentures to the general public. On September 4, 1992, an application under Section 12A of … 1992, by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, restraining the company from charging and adopting any unfair trade practice in charging of price for equity shares. At the time of passing the said order, counsel for the
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas686(Bom)
impugned Notice of Enquiry and the impugned order and from taking further steps in the matter of Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No. 27 of 1974. An order directing the 2nd respondent not to participate in the said enquiry … undertaking' and sub-s. (v) 'undertaking'. Again, sub-s. (e) of s. 2 defines 'goods', sub-s. (s) 'trade', sub-s. (u) 'trade practice', and sub-s. (o) 'restrictive trade practice' which is as follows : '2. (o) 'Restrictive trade practice' means a
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas757(Bom)
goods. The understanding/arrangement amongst the respondents for uniform tendering and/or uniform fixation of selling prices is a restrictive trade practice and is prejudicial to public interest. 8. In para. 17 of the application, it is alleged that the … clauses fall under s. 33 of the MRTP Act, which provides that any agreement relating to a restrictive trade practice falling within one or more of the categories mentioned in cls. (a) to (1) of sub-s. (1) thereof
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free