Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ12MRTP
1. We have heard the applicant, who is present in person, as well as the learned Advocate for the respondent. On the last date of hearing, we had given last and final opportunity to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 51,250/- (Rupees fifty one thousand two hundred and fifty only) invested by the applicant. The payment was made on 6th March, 2001 and two receipts have been annexed with the compensation application filed by the applicant. The applicant's grievance is that a false and misleading representation was made to him and he was lured to invest the aforesaid amount in order to avail of a free holiday package, offered by the respondent. It has been further contended by him that it was represented by the respondent that he could avail of the free holiday packages both within the country and outside and he had the option of going to any of the 75 cities where the respondent had facilities. It has been complained by him that it was a false representation by the respondent as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ7MRTP
1. Director General (Investigation and Registration) (hereinafter referred to as DG) has filed an application under Sections 10(a)(iii) and 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act) alleging that the respondent namely M/s. German Remedies Limited, Mumbai has adopted and indulged in both unfair and restrictive trade practices under Sections 36A and 2(o)(ii) of the Act. It is prayed that inquiry be held in such prohibited trade practices under Section 37(1) of the Act and cease and desist order be passed against the respondent.2. It is the contention of the DG that on inquiry it is found that subsequent to the lifting of the price control vide Drug Price Control Order, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as DPCO, 1995) the respondent offered free strips/bottles of Amoxil 250mg./500mg. capsules and dry syrup during the period from 15.11.1995 to 14.12.1995 to its distributors/retailers. The circular issued to its Distribution Department ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ3MRTP
1. The applicant is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling synthetic products. Respondent No. 1 - M/s.Master Road Lines, Delhi is a firm carrying on business of transporting goods for consideration. Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Ramprasad Master) and respondent No. 3 (Mr. Durgaprasad Tiwari) are the partners in the firm.The applicant decided to avail of the services of the respondent company for transportation of its products to various places. It sent goods of the value of Rs. 10,06,264 /- to M/s. Shriram Textiles, at 385 A130, New Krishna Cloth Market, Chandani Chowk, Delhi during the period 1995 and 1996. As the goods were not delivered within the stipulated period, the time limit of Hundies with the invoices in lieu of L/Rs given, expired. Consequently, the Bank authorities returned the documents having been dishonoured. Several efforts made in this regard failed and the applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent for delivery of goods. For non-f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ4MRTP
1. On a complaint received from Dilshad Plaza Residents Welfare Association alleging adoption of unfair trade practices by the respondent, namely, M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., the Director General (Investigation and Registration) (DG for short) was directed to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint. After investigation, DG submitted a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) on 25th May, 1998.In the PIR, the complainant Association is stated to have made the following allegations : (i) The possession was not given in 12 months from the date of booking of the flats. At a point of time (30th March, 1993) they sent a letter to all the customers that the flats were ready for possession but practically refused as the flats were not ready. It was done to make the case of deemed possession. (ii) After the flats were handed over, the residents got a demand for the cost of increased area. Surprisingly, DLF came to know so late after the flats were handed over. Not even when the contracto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ13MRTP
1. The present proceedings arose out of a complaint filed by one Shri Rajendra Jain Nagda. A Notice of Enquiry was issued by the Commission by an order dated 24.5.20001 The Preliminary Investigation Report has been placed on record, The respondent is stated to be a LPG Dealer of Indian Oil Corporation at Nagda, The complainant has alleged that the respondent has sold a LPG cylinder at a higher price than the approved/authorised price fixed by the Indian Oil Corporation. The complainant referred to the inspection of respondent's godown conducted by the District Food and Civil Supply Department on 9.1.1997. The inspection revealed that the respondent had sold 49 cylinders without issuing any bills to the unauthorised/unregistered consumers. The prevailing price of gas cylinder was Rs. 138.75 and at the time of spot inspection it was found that the respondent had sold 300 cylinders at a price of Rs. 140/- . The averment is made that after taking into consideration rebate of Rs. 2/-the ef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ9MRTP
1. The complainant, Mrs. Nandini Sarma applied and purchased three units of land in February 1996, at a total cost of Rs. 34,000/-. This was on the basis of an advertisement issued by M/s. KKR Palm Oil India Ltd. As per the representation in the advertisement, the stated project was to be carried out in an area of 20,000 acres of land acquired by the company at various suitable locations. Out of this, about 5,000 acres of land was proposed to be offered for public participation. As per the scheme devised, the project had been undertaken after careful analysis of the viability and profitability of the venture. The planting materials were stated to have been imported from ASC De Costa Rica --the world pioneer. The planting of Oil Palm was contended to have succeeded near Madurai in over 200 acres and the results were stated to be extremely good. The returns on the crops were stated to be assured and a buy-back scheme were offered with other factors which induced the applicant to go for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2004)CPJ22MRTP
1. The respondent is a public limited company having its registered office at Utran (District Surat), Gujarat. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of distribution of newsprint, White Duplex Board, Grey Board, Tubing Chip Board, Unbleached Board, Carton Board Amn, etc. for marketing its products. It appoints dealers/wholesalers by way of agreements executed with them. Copies of a few appointment letters/agreement entered into by the respondent with its wholesale dealers namely J.K. Traders, Ahmedabad, M/s. Smurti Trading Company, Ahmedabad, M/s. Shah Paper Corporation, Bangalore, M/s. Natraja Enterprises, Sivakasi, M/s. Somasundaram Cottage Industries, Vilhunagar, M/s. Subramaniyam & Co., Chennai and M/s. Paper Combines, Cochin reveal that there are certain clauses which are of restrictive nature. These are covered under Section 33(1)(e) and (f) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act). In view of the deeming provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2004)CPJ21MRTP
1. The present application has been filed under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts of the case are the respondent Kanpur Development Authority announced a scheme for registration of plots in the name of "Parshad Nagar" advertised on 1.1.1999. The plots were offered for registration with categorised price of Rs. 80,000/- on 40 feet road, Rs. 85,000/- on 60 feet road and Rs. 90,000/- on road exceeding width of 60 feets. The advertisement was published in Hindi daily "Aaj", Kanpur dated 1.1.1999, copy of the same has been placed on record. The applicant is stated to be hail from scheduled caste community and is subject to 21% reservation as per Government order dated 6.4.1993 and 23.11.1993. He applied for a suitable plot of the advertised 50 sq. mtrs. in Parshad Nagar and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- vide pay order/ Banker's cheque No. 41169 dated 27.1.1999 drawn on Allahabad Bank.2. The respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2004)CPJ18bMRTP
1. Learned Advocate for the respondent states, under instructions at the Bar, that the impugned trade practice has since been discontinued, as the Licence Agreement between the respondent, Koshika Telecom Limited and the Union of India has been terminated vide letter dated 22nd May, 1999 issued by the Government of India. A copy of the letter to this effect issued by the Ministry of Communications dated 22nd May, 1999 has also been annexed. Our attention has also been drawn to the affidavit of evidence of Shri Sena Banerjee, filed by and on behalf of the DG. Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the affidavit make the above averment.In view of the fact that the impugned trade practice has since come to an end and the agreement has also been terminated, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present proceeding. Accordingly, the complaint petition, on the basis of which the UTPE No. 212/1998 was instituted, stands disposed of and the Notice of Enquiry dated 29th October, 1998 is here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2004)CPJ7MRTP
1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Madurai and is engaged in the business of manufacture of textiles in its factory at Madurai, Ambasamudram and Tuticorn in the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondent is a Public Sector Enterprise engaged in the business of dealing in petroleum products including High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD oil). The petitioner is stated to have been purchasing HSD oil from the respondent regularly from its supply outlet at Cochin in the State of Kerala. This being an inter-State Sale, the petitioner has been paying Central Sales Tax @ 4% as required under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It has been alleged that in August, 1989, the respondent discontinued the supplies from Cochin and called upon the petitioner to draw supplies from the respondent's storage outlet at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. As a consequence of this, the petitioner is stated to have been subjected to payment of local sales tax @ 18%, whic...
Tag this Judgment!