Restrictive trade practice claim failed where sale negotiations never matured into a concluded contract and no price manipulation was shown.

Refusal to finalise a memorandum of understanding and to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee during negotiations for sale of flats did not amount to a restrictive trade practice under section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The parties were still at the stage of offers and counter-offers, so no concluded contract existed; the bank guarantee dispute was treated as a contractual disagreement rather than manipulation of prices or delivery conditions. The later sale of the flats to others at a lower price also negatived any inference of an attempt to extract an enhanced price or impose unjustified costs. On these facts, the complaint did not satisfy the statutory ingredients and civil remedies, if any, were the proper course.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to finalise the memorandum of understanding and to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee in the course of negotiations for sale of flats amounted to a restrictive trade practice under section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Analysis: The dealings between the parties remained at the stage of negotiations, offers and counter-offers and did not mature into a concluded contract. The dispute arose from disagreement over the bank guarantee clause, and the respondent's unwillingness to accept the proposed unconditional guarantee was treated as a contractual disagreement, not as a conscious manipulation of prices or conditions of delivery. The flats were ultimately sold to others at a lower price, which negatived any inference that the respondent had tried to extract an enhanced price or impose unjustified costs or restrictions. On these facts, the conduct complained of did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of restrictive trade practice, and the proper remedy, if any, lay in civil proceedings.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose a case under section 2(o)(ii) of the Act, and the dismissal of the complaint was justified.

---