Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ150MRTP
1. The present proceedings have been initiated on an application of the Director General of Investigation and Registration 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 agreement dated 1st November, 1996 executed between the respondent No. 1 Escort Yamaha Motors Ltd. and respondent No. 2 Yamuna Syndicate Ltd. The Notice of Enquiry was issued on 22nd November, 2002.2. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the dealers sales agreement dated 1st November, 1996 has since come to an end by efflux of time i.e. after a period of three years as will be evident from reading of Clause H(1) which states that "this agreement shall have a term of 3 years and can be renewed for a further term upon terms and conditions as deemed fit by EYML i.e. Escort Yamaha Motors Ltd.".The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 further states th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ151MRTP
1. The present proceedings have arisen out of the application of the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG in short), under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The DG received a complaint from one Shri Rattan Lal Premi, resident of Krishna Ganj (West), Pilkhua-245304, Ghaziabad, who purchased four books from respondent No. 1, vide Cash Memo No. 13675 dated 26th June, 1995. The informant made a complaint as a consumer in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi and subsequently he addressed his complaints to the President of the Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti, Pilkhua, wherein he alleged that the respondents had charged higher prices for the books than the printed prices. He further alleged that the respondents were charging revised prices for the books by putting stickers on the original prices. On the basis of the complaint filed by the informant Shri Rattan Lal Premi of which DG took cognizance, the Notice of Enquiry was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ147MRTP
1. The applicant Shri Rattan Lal, has made an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1969 stating therein that he applied for allotment of a house under the Self Financing Scheme 94-A of the respondent and also made a cash deposit of Rs. 33,000/- on 23.12.1993 in the Allahabad Bank, Rampur. It has been further stated that the respondent, according to the brochure, was to give allotment of the house in question, within one year from the date of registration.2. The grievance of the applicant is that the respondent did not make the allotment of the house in question, and when he approached the respondent for getting either allotment of the house in question or refund of the amount deposited by him, the deposit of Rs. 33,000 /-was refunded by the respondent through a cheque dated 9.6.1997 drawn on the State Bank of India but no interest on the deposit was paid by the respondent, initially. Thereafter when he approached the respondent again, int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ162MRTP
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the complainant. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent nor anyone appeared on its behalf on various dates. Therefore, the respondent was directed to be proceeded against ex parts by order dated 31st May, 2002.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner /complainant is a registered Society and was informed by the respondent to have been found to fall within the zone of consideration for allotment of land in Dwarka (Papankala, Phase-I) and Narela. The petitioner/complainant Society was called upon to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs as earnest money for allotment of land and the preference was also sought. The cost of land was fixed at Rs. 975/-per square metre in Dwarka and Rs. 950/- per square metre in Narela. Copy of the letter issued by the respondent Delhi Development Authority dated 1.10.1990 is appended to the complaint and is filed as Annexure-I.3. In pursuance of the aforesaid offer the petitioner/complainant made an application o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ146MRTP
1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the respondent as well as that of the DG. Learned Advocate representing the respondent states that he is relying on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1992, A.I.O. of Chemists and Druggists and Ors.v. Director General of Investigation and Registration, wherein Their Lordships have held as under: "The point in issue before the Commission was with regard to the validity of an agreement between the Chemists of All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists and M/s. Cynamid India Ltd. From the order of the Commission, it appears that the said agreement had come to an end. In this view of the matter, there was no need for the Commission to have considered whether any of the clauses of the said agreement was valid or not.2. Learned Advocate for the respondents states that the present inquiry is squarely covered by the aforesaid order and has been followed by this very Commission in R.T.P.E. Nos. 496/87, 590/87...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ153MRTP
1. The subject-matter of the present proceedings relates to a Dealership Agreement dated 4th October, 1991. Clause 2 of the said Agreement may be referred to as below : "2. This agreement shall be deemed to have come into force on 1.10.1991. The agreement will be valid initially for a period of three years from the said 1.10.1991 and may be extended for a like period. The continuance of this Agreement, would depend upon the continuously satisfactory fulfilment of the terms contained herein. The Company reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time during its currency if there is a breach the terms." 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the agreement has since not been renewed and the same has come to an end. We may refer to the order dated 2nd August, 2001 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on similar question in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1992, A.I.O. of Chemists and Druggists and Ors. v. D.G., Invest. & Registration, New Delhi, which may be reproduced as b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ40MRTP
1. The applicant Madura Coats Limited has filed an application under Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act read with Rule 85 of the MRTPC Regulations for revocation/amendment of the order dated 30th July, 2001. "The complainant is aggrieved by the Circular dated 31st July, 1969 which may be reproduced as below ; "As a high volume consumer of H.S.D., you will kindly appreciate the need for timely supply of this important input for uninterrupted running of your plant. In order to ensure this, and to make optimum use of our facilities, the Oil Industry has decided to make certain changes in the logistics of supplies which also involves a change in Supply Point to valued customers like you. We would like to advise you that effective 1st September, 1989 your requirement of HSD will be met from Madurai Supply Point on delivered basis. By this arrangement, prompt and immediate supplies will be effectively ensured.' The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the aforesaid Circular has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ154MRTP
1. These two petitions registered as U.T.P.E. No. 5/96 and C.A. No.3/96 are being disposed of by a common order because the cause of action giving rise to these proceedings and the points of law and facts involved are identical in both the cases.2. The applicant has filed Compensation Application under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 31.3.1990 till the date of realisation as well as cost of the proceedings. The facts of the case are incorporated in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the application which may be reproduced below : "1. That the respondent is a Government of U.P. undertaking, carrying on its business in the field of electronics in the name and style of Uptron India Limited, with its registered Office at 10, Ashok Marg, Lucknow - 226001 and its Regional Office at Calcutta. 2. The complainant is an educated unemployed youth who was in search of proper employme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : I(2003)CPJ124MRTP
1. The complainant - Shri Bhim Sen has filed a complaint petition charging the respondent, the Delhi Development Authority, with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices and stating therein that he applied for a flat under the Low Income Group Scheme of the respondent and paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as the initial deposit and he was registered at Sl. No. 40447. In support of this averment, the applicant has annexed the registration slip issued to him. He has also enclosed the deposit receipt, issued by the respondent, for the amount of Rs. 1,500/-. Thereafter, the complainant approached the respondent by writing a letter dated 11.3.1993 for issuing the allotment-cum-demand letter and also sent a reminder dated 13.4.1993 but there was no response from the respondent. The correspondence with the respondent, however, continued till 1998. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the flat in question, had been allotted to somebody else by the respondent.2. In reply to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ61MRTP
1. On a complaint received from one Shri Naval Kishore Singh against the respondent i.e. Me Dowell & Company Limited that the respondent has been allowing differential discounts to wholesalers, the Commission directed the Director General (Investigation and Registration) (hereinafter referred to as DG) to investigate into the complaint and to submit its preliminary investigation report. The DG after obtaining information on certain points from the respondent recommended institution of inquiry against the respondent for the reasons given in its PIR filed on 10.12.1997. As per the report, "the respondent has allowed differential incentives by way of credit notes amounting to manipulation of prices imposing unjustified cost on the unfavoured customers which tends to impair competition". The enquiry was recommended under Section 37(1) read with Sections 2(o)(ii) and 33(1)(e) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. A Notice of...
Tag this Judgment!