Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ46MRTP
1. We have heard both the learned Advocates representing the applicant and the respondent on the issue of maintainability of the present proceeding. The applicant, is stated to have invented a device, named "GASFEST" and it is claimed that with the use of this device, saving of 40% of LPG can be obtained. The applicant approached the respondent for getting the device tested in its laboratory. The respondent accordingly, is stated to have got this LPG saving device tested in its laboratory at Dehradun. According to the report, submitted by the laboratory, the device does not show any fuel saving. It has also been stated that the respondent is a registered Society under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The respondent, in its reply, has stated that as the Petroleum Conservation Research Association is an association run, managed and controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the present proceeding is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 3(a) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This order will dispose of two applications filed under Section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for issuance of an interim injunction against the respondents.2. The applicant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 10(a)(iv) read with Section 37, Section 2(o)(ii) and Sections 33(l)(a) and 33(l)(i) of the Act in respect of the alleged restrictive trade practice undertaken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for boycotting or compelling the retailers/traders to boycott the applicant's/complainant's products and also for interfering with the distribution and sale of the products. It is contended that the applicant/ complainant is suffering irreparable damage, injury and loss as a direct consequence of the actions of the respondents and as such they should be restrained from compelling or interfering in any manner with the distribution and sales of the complainant's products. In an application filed under Section 12A of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ53MRTP
1. Shri Arvind Sharma, s/o Shri Srikishan Sharma, r/o Bungalow No.L-189, Railway Colony, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, filed an application for institution of enquiry under Section 36-B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 [the MRTP Act for breif] against M/s. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan (RFC for short) and M/s. Angira Heavy Engineering Industries, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, for the unfair trade practices indulged in by them. It has been stated that the informant/complainant set up an industrial unit in the small scale sector for manufacturing/processing of granite tiles. He obtained a loan of Rs. 5.60 lakhs in October, 1989 from RFC for financing the same. With the said loan the informant/complainant also purchased two machines from the respondent.The informant/complainant having defaulted in the payment of laon, RFC initiated recovery proceedings against him under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The complainant is an Association of State Road Transport Undertaking (ASRTU) which is an apex body stated to be representing the interest of 67 State Road Transport Undertakings. It has its registered office at New Delhi and functions through various Standing Committees, which in turn are constituted by the General Body. The respondent No. 1 is one of the manufacturers of valves for internal combustion engine and not valve guide. The latter items are traded in by it. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand is a leading manufacturer of valves for I.C.engine in the country.2. On 17.1.1995 both the parties submitted their tenders on the stated prevailing published prices. The tenders of both the parties were considered at 175th meeting of S.C. (S&C) held in Guwahati in the month of April, 1995. Decision to accept the contract of both the respondents was communicated to the parties vide letter dated 9th November, 1995.Offer was also sent to both the firms. However, the offer was not f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ47MRTP
1. Shri Arvind Sharma, s/o Shri Srikishan Sharma, r/o Bungalow No.L-189, Railway Colony, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, filed an application for institution of enquiry under Section 36-B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief), against M/s. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan (RFC for short) and M/s. Angira Heavy Engineering Industries, Abu Road, Sirohi District, Rajasthan, for the unfair trade practices indulged in by them. It has been stated that the informant/complainant set up an industrial unit in the small scale sector for manufacturing/processing of granite tiles. He obtained a loan of Rs. 5.60 lakhs in October, 1989 from RFC for financing the same. With the said loan the informant/complainant also purchased two machines from the respondent.The informant/complainant having defaulted in the payment of loan, RFC initiated recovery proceedings against him under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ41MRTP
1. This order will dispose of the above listed Compensation Application No. 75/1997 as well as the Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 198/1997, which arise from the same set of facts and involve identical questions of law.2. The main grievance of the applicant, namely, M/s. Vardhaman Textiles Mills Limited is that inspite of the fact, that the applicant paid full amount of advance for the purchase of certain items of machinery, the respondent, M/s. Loyal Engineering Limited, Coimbatore, failed to deliver the machinery immediately as promised in the Order Acceptance Letter dated 29th July, 1995. As a result, the applicant claims to have suffered financial losses. Hence this claim for compensation under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in brief).3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant Company intended to set up a spinning yarn project at village Pasina Kalan in Panipat, Haryana at an estimated cost of Rs. 489 lacs. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ17MRTP
1. The applicant/complainant has filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for review of the order dated 7th January, 2002 which may be referred as below : "The present complaint/petition has been made under Sections 36B(d), 10(a)(iv) read with Sections 36A and 2(o)(ii) and 37 of the MRTP Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in unfair and restrictive trade practices. An application under Section 12A has also been filed seeking ex parte injunction against invocation and encashment of the bank guarantee furnished by the applicant/complainant in favour of the respondents. 2. It appears that the applicant/ complainant was appointed as a dealer by the respondents for the sale of their car 'Uno' and a dealership agreement was entered into between them on 2.2.1999 in terms of which the applicant/complainant was required to furnish ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. Mr. Justice C.M. Nayar, Chairman-The applicant has filed an application for compensation wherein he has claimed compensation of Rs. 15,49,000/- as stated in paragraph 16 which may be reproduced as below : 2. The applicant applied for allotment of the plot in the year 1989 measuring between 2001 to 4000 sq. mtrs. and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in this regard as registration. The applicant was allotted a plot of 2000 sq. mtrs. under scheme Surajpur Kasna V, instead of scheme between 2001 and 4000 sq. mtrs. category, which he did not avail of.3. The respondents have filed reply wherein it is stated that the applicant was offered a plot of a similar size and as he did not avail of that opportunity the amount was forfeited under the terms of allotment vide allotment letter dated 7.8.1992. We may refer to Clause 4 of the said communication, which may be reproduced as below : "4. You shall deposit at this office an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Earnest money of Rs. 25,000.00 has been adj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. In a complaint filed by Mr. A. Prabhu and Mrs. Nirmala Prabhu, residents of Bangalore, the respondent M/s. Green Country Agro Foods Limited have been charged with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for the loss and damages suffered by them, compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,88,250 has been claimed.2. Briefly put, allured by the advertisements, hoardings, pamphlets of the respondent in respect of various innovative schemes launched by it popularly termed as "Akasya Bhoomi", the applicants applied for 3 acres of land in the name of Mrs. Nirmala Prabhu and 1 acre of land in the name of Mr. A. Prabhu. The offer was accepted and the applicants deposited the following amounts : 3. The above mentioned payments were duly admitted by the respondent.In lieu of the payments made, the respondents were required to undertake the cultivation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. We have heard the learned Advocates for the DG as well as that of the respondent. The DG made an application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 ['the Act' for brief] alleging that the respondent. Plastic Packers, adopted and indulged in restrictive trade practices by offering discriminatory discounts @ 5% of the value of orders received from Nitin Arora and Rajan Arora and @ 7% to Pharma Printers and this trade practice is violative of the provisions of Section 33(l)(e) of the Act. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent is that, admittedly, discriminatory discounts were given by the respondent but on two different products, namely, low density polythene bags and high density polythene bags. It has been clarified that the respondent is a small scale manufacturer of polythene tubes, sheets and bags and different rates of discounts/ commission were paid on two different products and not on the same product. It is als...
Tag this Judgment!