Alternative statutory remedies do not bar MRTP jurisdiction, but relief requires a prima facie case under the Act.

The availability of remedies under the Companies Act or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act did not, by itself, bar recourse to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, because the Act's remedy was additional and not in derogation of other statutory remedies. However, a complaint could succeed only if the pleaded facts prima facie attracted the Act. On the facts, refusal to transfer shares, said to arise from a family objection and the absence of a succession certificate, did not show manipulation, restrictive or unfair trade practice, deception, or any adverse effect on competition. No relief was therefore available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of remedies under other statutes barred recourse to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission; and (ii) whether the refusal to transfer shares disclosed a restrictive trade practice, unfair trade practice, or manipulation attracting the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of remedies under other statutes barred recourse to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the remedy under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act as additional to, and not in derogation of, other remedies. Availability of an appeal or other relief under the Companies Act or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act does not by itself exclude jurisdiction under the Act, provided the pleaded facts attract its provisions and the matter is fit for enquiry.

Conclusion: The availability of alternative remedies did not, by itself, bar the complaint before the Commission.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to transfer shares disclosed a restrictive trade practice, unfair trade practice, or manipulation attracting the Act.

Analysis: The refusal to transfer was attributable to an objection from the applicant's brother and the absence of the required succession certificate. On the facts, no material showed manipulation of conditions of delivery, unjustified costs or restrictions, false representation, deception, or any adverse effect on competition. The claim did not make out even a prima facie case under the relevant provisions.

Conclusion: The allegations did not attract the relevant provisions of the Act and no relief could be granted.

Final Conclusion: The review was rejected because the Commission found no basis to disturb its earlier communication, although it reaffirmed that the statutory remedy under the Act is not excluded merely because other remedies exist.

Ratio Decidendi: The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not exclude the Commission's jurisdiction under the Act, but relief can be granted only where the pleaded facts prima facie attract the substantive provisions of the Act.

---