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 an application for compensation under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is maintainable without separate proceedings under Section 10 or Section 36B of that Act.
Analysis: Section 12B confers a distinct remedy enabling a claimant to seek compensation for loss or damage caused by monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice. The power under Section 12B(3) to conduct an inquiry into the allegations in the compensation application is independent of the Commission's powers under Sections 10 and 36B. The absence of any express textual link making Section 12B dependent on prior proceedings under Sections 10 or 36B, coupled with the scheme of the provision and its introduction as an additional remedy, shows that Parliament did not intend such interdependence. The earlier decision relied on by the Tribunal did not decide this specific question.
Conclusion: An application under Section 12B is maintainable without the prior initiation of separate proceedings under Section 10 or Section 36B.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the compensation applications were held to be maintainable, while leaving the respondents free to contest whether any monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice was made out on the merits before the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 12B of the MRTP Act constitutes an independent compensatory remedy, and its maintainability does not depend on prior proceedings under Sections 10 or 36B unless the statute expressly so provides.