Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG in short) has moved an application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act) charging M/s. Godrej - GE Appliances Limited, the respondent No. 1 with the adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices under Section 33(1) of the MRTP Act.2. The respondent No. 1 is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale and distribution of refrigerators and washing machines. For the purpose of sale and distribution of the aforesaid products, the respondent has appointed dealers. The respondent No. 2, namely M/s. Venkateshwara Traders is one of the dealers appointed by respondent No. 1. The DG's application is based on the agreement dated 2.5.1995 entered into between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. It has been alleged that the following clauses of the aforesaid agreement amount to restrictive trade practices u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This order will dispose of the application filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) [the DG] under Section 10(a)(iii) read with Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The only grievance against the respondent is referred to in paragraph 5 of the application of the DG which reads as under : "5. That as per respondent's Pet Film Domestic Marketing-Sales Policy dated 8.2.2001, it offered discount to its customers as per details : That the Quantity Discount structure as contained in Domestic Sales Policy of respondent attracts the provisions of Section 33(1)(e) of the Act being deemed restrictive trade practice as respondent is giving differential discounts ranging from Rs. 0.50 to Rs. 4.00 per kg. depending upon off-take quantity. The trade practice of giving differential discount by reasons of dealings to customers who use for different value added products amounts to restrictive trade practice as it impairs and distorts competit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This compensation application has been filed by the applicant under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The dispute revolves around the computer which was allegedly sold by the respondent to the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that, despite making full and final payment to the respondent, the computer did not work and was sent for repairs. It has been contended by Shri Varun Kochar, partner of the respondent firm, which was dissolved subsequently, that the full payment was not made by the applicant and the computer was in working condition. The points which arise for consideration between the parties are in the nature of private dispute. We, therefore, do not find any ground to continue any further proceedings in this case.2. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the present compensation application with liberty to take recourse to any other remedy in an appropriate Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents. The complainant applied on 4th March, 1991 for allotment of a residential flat of Kalpna Triple Storey Residential Category in the KARPURI PURAM housing scheme of the respondents by filing an application for registration bearing form No. 1173, which is filed as Annexure P3 to the complaint. The respondents had accepted the application form of the complainant and reserved a house by allotting Allottee Code No. 609-3,1 C-0007. The payments were made on different dates as will be evident from reading paragraph 7 of the complaint, which may be reproduced as below : "According to the terms and conditions stipulated by the respondents themselves possession of the flat was to be given to the applicant by March, 1994. The petitioner accordingly made all the 60% of the total amount by 30.7.1992. The compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This is a compensation application filed by M/s. Real Power Bolting, Agra. The original compensation application is in Hindi and is stated to have been filed under Section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the MRTP Act). The same is stated to have been signed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, who is present in the Court and states that he is a member of Udyami Upbhokta Vikash Parishad, Langre Ki Chowki, Agra. We do not find any authorisation on behalf of Udyami Upbhokta Vikash Parishad to represent the case. We, therefore, find that the complaint is not filed by a duly authorised person nor Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma has the authority to address this Commission on behalf of the complainant. We, however, heard Shri Sharma on merits.2. The short question which has been raised in this complaint is that the respondent has not issued 'H' form to the complainant for the transaction which took place on 1.12.1995 and in respect of the said t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The case before us relates to alleged discovery of insects and dirt in two bottles of Limca manufactured by Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak. The impugned bottles were handed over and produced when enquiry was conducted by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) (hereinafter referred to as DG) for investigation into the matter. The DG issued probe letters to both the respondents namely Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as R-1) and Shri Suresh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Suresh Cold Drink, Beri Gate, Jhajjar Distt, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as R-2) raising several queries on the sub-standard product supplied to the complainant. R-2 was asked for a copy of the agreement, if any, number of crates of bottles received, number of bottles returned to the manufacturer on account of their being substandard and unhygienic, cash memos issued etc. Both the respondents replied back meeting each and every query of the DG. The DG not satisfied with the explanatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries Limited is engaged in manufacture of fatty alcohol and other chemicals. It has been charged with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o) read with Section 33(i) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short, the Act). This is in a complaint filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) under Section 10(a)(iii) and Section 37 of the Act. The specific allegations levelled are manipulation of prices, supply of goods on payment of higher price and charging differential rates from various parties.These in turn are taken up from the complaint of one M/s. Galaxy Organics (P) Ltd., A-8, Shaheen, 153-154, R.C. Marg, Chembur, Bombay - 400 074, purchaser of goods of M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries (P) Ltd. 2. For having suffered losses at the hands of the party on account of its following the practice of restrictive trade, the complainant also sought compensation of an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The respondent has filed an application dated 20.11.2000 wherein he has specifically explained in paragraphs 4 and 5 that the applicant has prayed for the same relief from the High Court of Delhi on an identical cause of action. A copy of the plaint filed in the High Court is also placed on record. We are satisfied that the cause of action which arises in this application is the same as has been taken recourse to by the complainant in the High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 174 of 1999. Mr.N.K. Newar, Director of the applicant Company is also present in person. He also states that the suit as referred to above is still pending in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. We, therefore, find no ground to entertain this compensation application.2. In view of the above reasons, the present compensation application is disposed of and liberty is granted to the applicant to continue the proceedings which are pending in the High Court of Delhi. The application moved by the respondent also stands disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This enquiry has been initiated on the basis of an application filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) [the DG in brief] under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act").2. M/s. Godrej - GE Appliances Ltd., respondent No. 1, is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing refrigerators and washing machines. The respondent No. 2, M/s. Roshin Enterprises is one of the distributors appointed by respondent No. 1 in terms of the Distributorship Agreement dated 15.3.1995. DG's allegation is that the following clauses in the aforesaid Agreement form restrictive trade practices under various clauses of Section 33(1) of the MRTP Act. "Clause (h) : As far as distribution of the said products to retailers are concerned, it is agreed that you will devote your full time and attention to the promotion of the said products, and instruct and educate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. This enquiry started on the basis of an application filed by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG in brief), under Section 36-B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act). It has been alleged that the practice of including 'Tanka' and stones' in the total weight of the gold ornaments and charging for the whole weight at the rate of gold is a misrepresentation amounting to unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36-A(l)(i) of the MRTP Act. It has been further stated that the said unfair trade practice is prejudicial to public interest as it is causing loss/injury to the common consumers.2. The Commission issued a Notice of Enquiry (NOE) under Sections 36B(c) and 36-D of the MRTP Art. The respondent filed its reply to the NOE. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in the unfair trade practice as stated in the Noti...
Tag this Judgment!