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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for initiation of proceedings under section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, causation of loss or injury to consumers is a necessary condition.
Analysis: Section 36A defines an unfair trade practice as a trade practice that adopts one or more specified practices and thereby causes loss or injury to consumers. The provision was construed as requiring the two elements to operate conjunctively, not disjunctively. The Court held that the Commission had erred in treating actual loss or injury as unnecessary, and reaffirmed that proceedings under the provision can be initiated only where the pleaded facts show both the prohibited practice and the resulting loss or injury to consumers.
Conclusion: The requirement of causation of loss or injury to consumers is a mandatory condition for action under section 36A, and the contrary view was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable because it proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the statutory ingredients of unfair trade practice, and the appellant succeeded in appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding under section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 lies only when the alleged trade practice both falls within a specified category and thereby causes loss or injury to consumers; the requirements are cumulative.