Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2003)CPJ19MRTP
1. The petitioner has moved this Commission under Sections 36B(A) and 10A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents for indulging in the unfair and restrictive trade practices under Section 36A of the Act.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Cable Television Network under the Cable Television (Regulation) Act, 1995 in the city of Patiala in Punjab State and is being run as partnership firm. It is stated to be carrying on the business of providing multi-services such as providing cable and satellite television signal of Star TV, Sony TV, Zee TV, ESPN channel, Discovery Channel etc., internet services and other emerging technologies and services to the consumers. The respondents 1 to 3 are the companies which are allegedly supplying the 'Pay Channels' on cost to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 is the distribution agent for respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 5 is the Cable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ23MRTP
1. The petitioner/complainant filed an application under Section 36B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was subsequently treated as an application for compensation under Section 12B of the Act by an order dated 9.8.1999. The petitioner purchased a Ticket No. 057 9478 623 468 6 for the travel sector Delhi-Paris-Nice-Paris-Delhi with confirmed booking showing status as "OK" from the respondent M/s. Air France. The petitioner was granted visa by the Embassy of France in New Delhi which was a five-day transit visa bearing No. F-39476384. The petitioner is stated to have reached Airport on the day of travel on 18.10.1998 by Flight No. AF 147 as operated by the respondent. When the petitioner was proceeding for boarding the aircraft, representative of the respondents called the petitioner back and once again checked the papers of the petitioner and stated that the visa granted to him was not proper and, therefore, he could ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ43MRTP
1. The present application has been filed under Section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for recalling and revoking the orders dated 4.5.2000, 15.5.2000 and 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Chairman as he then was. The order dated 4.5.2000 was merely for fixing the date of hearing of the application for converting the UTP Enquiry No. 451/1997 into a Compensation Application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The learned Chairman passed an ofder on 15.5.2000 wherein he allowed the application of the complainant and permitted conversion of the Unfair Trade Practice Enquiry Proceedings into the compensation application which was registered as such as was listed for hearing on 6.5.2000 as Compensation Application No. 192/2000. The learned Judge heard the matter and disposed of the same on 16.5.2000. The operative portion of the order dated 16.5.2000 reads as under : "The cause of action for filing a compensation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : III(2004)CPJ1MRTP
1. There was a spate of advertisements, which appeared in different newspapers between the period 12.11.1990 to 13.12.1990 regarding the winning of different cars free of cost. The advertisement came from M/s. Byford Leasing located at 3, Aurbindo Marg, South Delhi. The sum and substance of the advertisements was that any prospective applicant can own new models of Premier, Maruti, Hindustan, Contessa, Classic, Ambassador or Mahendra under instalment scheme by paying the lowest margin money or trading in the used car. The application form was floated whereby the prospective applicant was to fill a form and can win the said cars by entering into "I Love my Environment" contest. The back of the application form contains 5 questionnaire out of which three correct answers could entitle him to win prizes in the final draw. The complainant Mr. H.K. Ahluwalia, r/o Shastri Nagar, Meerut lured by these offers purchased Omni Maruti from Byford under City Bank Finance Scheme and became eligible ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ158MRTP
1. The above listed Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 47/ 89 and the Compensation Application No. 237/ 96 are connected matters arising from the same cause of action. The facts and points of law involved in both the cases are also identical, they shall, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.2. Based on the complaint of M/s. Somaiya Organics India Ltd., the Director General (Investigation and Registration) [the DG in short] investigated the allegations made in aforesaid complaint and filed a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) dated 23.4.1991.3. It has been stated in the PIR that the respondent, namely, M/s.Thermax Private Limited, Chinchwad, Pune, supplied two boilers to M/s.Somaiya Organics India Ltd. in 1987. These boilers were allegedly old and rusted. It is further alleged that the boilers suffered innumerable breakdowns and operated way below the required efficiency levels and never generated the contractually stipulated steam pressure. As a result, the applicant/ infor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ139MRTP
1. The Applicant/complainant Ms. Namrata Chawla, through her legal Guardian Shri M.L. Chawla, has filed an application under the provisions (without citation of specific sections/ regulations) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] asking for recall and review of the order dated 17th May, 2001 whereby the Commission has directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 82,050.94 to the applicant/ complainant in four instalments.To be precise and exact, the order reads as under : "The learned Counsel for the respondent has offered a proposal for compromise. The amount which is agreed to be payable to the applicant/complainant by the respondent is Rs. 82,050.94. It is, however, stated on behalf of the respondent that the amount may be permitted to be paid by eight monthly instalments. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount shall be paid to the applicant by four instalments of Rs. 20,510/- each. The post-dated ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ145MRTP
1. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the DG as well as the respondent. The present inquiry has been instituted on an application made by the DG stating therein that the respondents issued an advertisement under the caption "Ciba Vision" in order to promote the sale of Focus Disposable Contact Lenses with a representation therein that there is no protein buildup in these Contact Lenses and there is no hassle of using protein remover tablets. It is an admitted fact that the aforesaid advertisement appeared only during the period April, 1998 to July, 1998 and was discontinued thereafter, even before the Notice of Enquiry dated 22.7.1999 was issued to the respondents. It is also not disputed or denied that the aforesaid impugned advertisement was discontinued by the respondents in July, 1998 and during the pendency of the present proceeding, the same or similar advertisement was not issued again by the respondents. It may also be mentioned here that the DG filed the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ142MRTP
1. The complainant, namely, Mulchand Bakhru, partner in Chandiram & Company has charged the respondent, namely, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited for having adopted or indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of provisions of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is the contention of the complainant that the respondent/ who is engaged in providing essential services of telephonic communication and enjoys monopoly status, has misled the customers with its false promises, which are followed more in breach than in fulfilment. The respondent through its representation from time to time in various newspapers has come up with the following promises : (vi) "Yet Another Step towards Better Customer care-Your Visits for Telephone Billing Problems Eliminated"; 2. Even in its Delhi Telephone Directory, 1994 at page 9 of Volume-1 (A-J), it has printed a slogan "HELLO ! WE AT MTNL DELHI TELEPHONES ARE COMMITTED TO SERVE". T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ167MRTP
1. An application under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act), has been filed by one Shri Haji Nasiruddin on behalf of the legal heirs alleging deficiency of services on the part of the three respondents namely, Prem Pharmaceuticals Osan Beg, P.O. Palda, Indore, (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as R-l); Avon Chemists, Shop No. 26/114, LGF Block No. 114, Sanjay Place, Agra (hereinafter referred to as R-2), and Dr. D.C.Goyal, G.G. Medical Institute, Sanjay Place, Agra (hereinafter referred to as R-3) resulting in death of his wife Mrs. Hajra Begum (deceased).For unfair trade practices adopted and indulged in by the respondents, the applicant has claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- jointly and severally from the three respondents. In addition, an amount of Rs. 20,200/- is claimed from R-3 and Rs. 37,000/-from R-2 for having supplied defective glucose bottle not fit for consumption. There is also a prayer for refund of Rs. 37/- towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ149MRTP
1. The present proceeding arises on an application filed by Director General (I&R) under Section 10(a)(iii) read with Section 37(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for institution of Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry against the respondent in respect of the draft distributorship agreement, which is placed on record as Annexure-IV. The Notice of Enquiry was issued on 18th December, 2002.We may refer to the reply filed by the respondent wherein it is stated in paragraph 5 as follows : "5. That the contents of Para 5 of the application, as stated, are not denied. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent, it is however, submitted that during the course of investigation under Section 11(2) of the MRTP Act, the respondent had specifically disclosed the Agreement/Dealer/ Distributor Application Form and mentioned that in case the applicant is of the view that any clause of the Speciman Agreement was deemed to be violative of the prov...
Tag this Judgment!