Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. On a complaint filed by one M/s. Rajeshwari Gas Service, Proprietor Sureshbhai B. Patel, Karjan, District Baroda that the respondent, M/s.Sharda Fuels (India) Ltd., Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi has been indulging in unfair trade practices, the Commission directed the Director General (Investigation and Registration) to conduct an enquiry. In its report dated 6.3.1998, the Director General (Investigation and Registration) stated that M/s. Sharda Fuels (India) Ltd., 48/48A, Balughat, Allahabad has appointed M/s. Rajeshwari Gas Service (hereinafter referred to as Informant) as its authorised gas dealer vide an agreement dated 12.1.1995 for the area of Karjan, District Baroda, Gujarat. As per the agreement the respondent had agreed to supply gas cylinders and refills regularly on a charge of Rs. 10/- by way of commission for each cylinder and the refills. Even the 13th gas cylinders with Rs. 2,080/- sent for refilling were not received back. It was further reported that the attempts to serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The applicant/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 36(B)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as well as Compensation Application against the respondents. The complainant booked a Maruti car with respondent No. 1, namely, M/s.Rohan Motors Limited on 8th January, 1998 and the total cost of the same cited in the invoice dated 9th January, 1998 was Rs. 2,03,731 /-.The Order Booking Form reveals that the applicant/ complainant had booked a Maruti car (Standard-unleaded) and the period of delivery was specified as 8-10 weeks. Applicant/ complainant, however, took delivery of the Maruti car (Standard-leaded) vide invoice dated 9th January, 1998, which is filed as Annexure-II and is stated to be using the same even at present. The main grievance of the applicant/ complainant is that though he had booked an unleaded version of the car, he was not supplied with the same and only a Standard leaded car was supplied to him.2. On completion of pleadings, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. Mr. Justice C.M. Nayar, Chairman-The present complaint has been filed under Section 10 read with Section 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 against the respondent for indulging in unfair and restrictive trade practices. The complainants as well as respondent have entered into an agreement dated 6th June, 1989 wherein they purchased a plot of and admeasuring 1 acre in the revenue estate of village Siwana Kiranki, Sub Tehsil Sohna, Distt.Gurgaon, Haryana The Purchase Agreement has been filed with the complaint. The complainants paid a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent as is evident from reading of the purchase agreement. The dispute arose between the parties particularly with reference to the number of the plot as well as for payment of maintenance charges and non-plantation of Eucalyptus trees. The complainants have already got possession of the plot and it is conceded by learned Counsel for the respondent that the number of the plot is C-80 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. Ms. Moksh Mahajan, Member--Order in C.A. No. 35/1999 in the case of applicants, S.K. Kapoor and Ors. v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Anr., was pronounced on 27th April, 2001 dismissing the Compensation Application with observation that the respondent was at liberty to refund the amount as agreed to be done by its own letter dated 6.8.1998 within two weeks from the receipt of the order.2. The applicants have moved an application under Section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for amendment/ revocation of the order passed by the Commission under Section 12B of the Act. The thrust of the petition is mainly on certain errors/omissions having crept in the order. These include findings on furnishing of brochure, escalation of prices and interpretation of letters by the applicants addressed to the respondent authority.3. While we find no apparent/patent error in the order, which needs to be rectified or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. Maintainability of the proceedings initiated as a result of issuance of Notice of Enquiry have been assailed by the respondents, who are ten in number.2. First the facts in brief in order to appreciate the issue in question. An anonymous complaint was received alleging that some of the leading Undertakings in the Northern India have entered into a cartel for hiking the prices of their products having monopoly therein. The prices of chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid were stated to have registered an increase of 277% and 200% within six and four months respectively in the year 1992. The same were contended to be a result of an agreement amongst the parties to create an artificial scarcity in order to raise the prices of the products. Since the prices of the main raw materials namely, sodium chloride and electricity had more or less remained the same, there was stated to be a fictitious crises created to take advantage of the market position where the demand exceeded the supply. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The present order would dispose of both the complaint as well the application filed in UTPE No. 5/92 and C.A. No. 73/92 by the DG/ applicant respectively under the relevant provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act).2. The respondent is a non-banking financial company carrying on the business of hire purchase, leasing and housing finance. It raised funds through floating a deposit linked housing financing scheme where the deposit of 25% of the total amount qualified the depositor for a specified sum of housing loan. The aforesaid amount paid could either be adjusted in the repayment of loan or to be refunded back to the depositor/applicant in case of loan not availed of. No interest was to be paid on the refund of the deposit before a period of 24 months. On complaints received from Shri M.L. Jain and Shri R.C. Chatrath that despite fulfilment of the conditions, the refund of the amount as deposited were not paid back, the DG carried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 12B read with Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for refund of Rs. 50,000/- with interest (c) 18% w.e.f. 11.12.1995 till the date of refund. The applicant participated in the auction held by the respondent for a flat and as per the terms and conditions relating to such auction, he deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by pay Order No, 23346 dated 21.11.1995 in favour of the respondent. The matter was listed for hearing on 9.2.2001 and the proceedings were directed to be set ex-parte against the respondent. The applicant has filed an affidavit by way of evidence wherein contents of the application have been reiterated. We, therefore, direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is wrongly withheld with interest (r) 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of auction till the date of refund.2. The complainant shall also be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. The amount sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. 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 a Bank guarantee of Rs. 150 lakhs. It transpires from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the Bank guarantee was invoked by the respondents in order to recover the amounts which were collected by the applicant/ complainant from the buyer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. In this application filed under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (referred to as the MRTP Act hereafter), the applicant has claimed damages amounting to Rs. 6,16,576/- with interest @ 18% per annum for the loss suffered on account of the restrictive trade practices alleged to have been adopted by the respondent.2. The facts in brief are that the applicant, namely, Madura Coats Ltd., is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Madurai in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of textiles. The applicant has been purchasing petroleum products including High Speed Diesel (HSD) oil from the respondent from its delivery point at Cochin which is in the State of Kerala. The respondent, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., is a public sector enterprise engaged in the business of sale and distribution of petroleum products including HSD oil. The respondent has been making th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The applicant has filed a compensation application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act). The brief facts as incorporated in paragraphs 1 to 6 of this application may be reproduced : "(1) The applicant B.K. Gupta and Co. is a partnership firm and were carrying on business of Wholesale Liquor and were the Wholesellers of premium brand of Whisky manufactured by Khoday Distilleries Ltd. of Bangalore. The applicant has since 1989 has discontinued the business of liquor and has shifted to Noida in 1990 because of disturbed condition in Punjab as Ferozpur was infested with the militants. (2) North India Distilleries Ltd. is a sister concern of Khoday Distilleries Ltd., Bangalore. The applicant was appointed wholesale dealers of Khoday Distilleries for sale of Peter Scot and Red Night Whisky etc. for Ferozpur District of Punjab. (3) Khoday Distilleries floated a new Company under the name and style of North ...
Tag this Judgment!