TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the supplier could refuse to supply dairy products to the petitioners on the ground that they sold the goods below the maximum retail price, and whether such refusal was justified under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. (ii) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the cooperative respondent.
Issue (i): Whether the supplier could refuse to supply dairy products to the petitioners on the ground that they sold the goods below the maximum retail price, and whether such refusal was justified under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
Analysis: The maximum retail price fixed for the goods was only an upper ceiling, and the statutory scheme under sections 39 and 40 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 prohibited withholding supplies merely because a dealer resold goods at a lower price. A supplier could withhold supplies only where there was reasonable cause to believe that the dealer was using the goods as loss-leaders. On the admitted figures, the petitioners were still making a small profit on the sale and were not selling at a loss. The condition for treating the goods as loss-leaders was therefore not satisfied.
Conclusion: The refusal to supply the goods was not in accordance with law and could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the cooperative respondent.
Analysis: The petitioners were seeking enforcement of a statutory obligation arising under the regulatory regime governing the goods. In such circumstances, the existence of statutory public duty and the all-pervasive control of the State Government over the cooperative body supported exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The objection based on non-maintainability was therefore rejected.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable against the cooperative respondent.
Final Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to relief, and the challenge to the refusal of supply succeeded together with rejection of the maintainability objection.
Ratio Decidendi: A supplier cannot withhold goods from a retailer merely because the retailer sells below the maximum retail price unless the statutory conditions for loss-leader sales are met, and writ jurisdiction may be invoked to enforce a statutory public duty even against a cooperative society.
TaxTMI 
