Statutory investigation and clear prior restraint are required before treating an MRTP order as breached.

A finding of breach of an MRTP Commission restraint order required a proper statutory investigation under section 13A before violation could be recorded; without that enquiry, the finding could not stand. The earlier restraint order was also too vague to extend to a later advertisement relating to a housing scheme and real estate, because it did not clearly define the prohibited practice and real estate became part of the statutory concept of services only prospectively. On that basis, the Commission's order was held unsustainable in law and set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding of violation of the earlier Commission order could be sustained without an investigation under section 13A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. (ii) Whether the earlier order prohibiting discontinuance or repetition of the practice extended to the appellant's later advertisement relating to a housing scheme and real estate.

Issue (i): Whether the finding of violation of the earlier Commission order could be sustained without an investigation under section 13A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The earlier order under section 36D(1)(a) was passed without an independent finding on the nature of the alleged unfair trade practice and rested on the appellant's concession. In the later proceedings, the Commission proceeded to treat the appellant as having violated that order without first directing an investigation by the Director General. The statutory scheme contemplated a proper enquiry into the alleged breach before recording such a finding.

Conclusion: The finding of violation could not be sustained in the absence of an investigation under section 13A.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order prohibiting discontinuance or repetition of the practice extended to the appellant's later advertisement relating to a housing scheme and real estate.

Analysis: The earlier order was vague as to the exact practice prohibited and did not record a clear finding that the alleged conduct related to the sale, use or supply of goods or to services. Real estate was brought within the statutory definition of services in section 2(r) only with effect from 27 September 1991, whereas the advertisement in question was published earlier. The earlier order therefore could not be read as covering the later real estate advertisement.

Conclusion: The later real estate advertisement was not covered by the earlier order.

Final Conclusion: The Commission's order was unsustainable in law and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of breach of an MRTP Commission restraint order must rest on a proper statutory investigation and a clear, definite prior prohibition; an ambiguous order cannot be stretched to cover conduct outside its defined statutory scope, especially where the relevant statutory amendment operated only prospectively.

---