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 collection of refundable security deposit without payment of interest by a school constituted a restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and whether, in the absence of material showing an actual or probable effect on competition, the Commission could sustain a cease and desist order.
Analysis: The decision turned on the settled principle that a trade practice is not restrictive merely because it is in restraint of trade; it must be shown, on the facts of the particular trade, to have or likely have the effect of preventing, distorting, or restricting competition. The record contained no material to show that the practice of collecting refundable security without interest had any such competitive effect. The Commission's conclusion rested on an insufficient factual basis, and the absence of evidence showing the relevant economic facts and circumstances made the finding of restrictive trade practice unsustainable.
Conclusion: The practice was not proved to be a restrictive trade practice, and the cease and desist order could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A practice can be treated as a restrictive trade practice only if the material on record shows that it has, or may have, the effect of preventing, distorting, or restricting competition in the relevant market.