Interim relief under section 12A requires proved facts and recorded reasons; an unreasoned restraint altering status quo cannot stand.

Interim relief under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is available only when the Commission records satisfaction, on proved facts, that a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice is being carried on or is likely to continue, so bare allegations are insufficient. The text also states that an interim order must disclose reasons and show consideration of the material, especially where it alters the existing status quo. An unreasoned order not founded on proved facts is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, while the parties remain free to contest the merits before the Commission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commission could grant interim relief under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 without recording satisfaction on proved facts; (ii) Whether the interim order was sustainable when it disclosed no reasons and altered the existing distribution arrangement.

Issue (i): Whether the Commission could grant interim relief under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 without recording satisfaction on proved facts.

Analysis: Section 12A permits a temporary injunction only when the Commission is satisfied, on the basis of proved facts, that a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice is being carried on or is likely to continue so as to justify interim restraint. The grant of such relief is therefore conditional and cannot rest on bare allegations. The Court relied on the settled interpretation that notice and hearing are ordinarily required and that the statutory preconditions must be shown to exist before interim restraint is imposed.

Conclusion: The Commission could not validly grant interim relief unless the statutory conditions under section 12A were satisfied on proved facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim order was sustainable when it disclosed no reasons and altered the existing distribution arrangement.

Analysis: The impugned order did not disclose the basis on which the Commission reached its conclusion, nor did it show consideration of the material issues that arose even at an interim stage. As the order was appealable, the appellate court was entitled to know the reasons for the restraint. In the absence of any recorded reasons and in the absence of an indication that the order was founded on proved facts, the order could not be sustained and also had the effect of changing the prevailing status quo.

Conclusion: The interim order was unsustainable and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the limited extent that the interim restraint was quashed, while the parties were left free to agitate all issues before the Commission on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief under section 12A can be granted only on satisfaction, recorded with reasons, that the statutory conditions are made out on proved facts; an unreasoned order altering the existing position cannot stand.

---