Unfair trade practice findings must rest on pleaded allegations and statutory proof, not subjective notions of unfairness.

A cease and desist order under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act could not stand because the notice of enquiry and materials on record did not establish any pleaded unfair trade practice under Section 36A. The Commission was required to confine itself to the specific allegations, apply the statutory test, and base any finding on legally sufficient material; instead, it relied on subjective notions of unfairness and went beyond the notice without further notice, contrary to fairness and natural justice. The direction was quashed because no unfair trade practice was made out on the pleadings and materials.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned cease and desist order under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 could be sustained when the notice of enquiry and the materials on record did not establish any of the alleged unfair trade practices and the Commission failed to apply the statutory test under Section 36A.

Analysis: The booking terms expressly provided for refund of unallotted amounts with interest and the allegations in the notice of enquiry had to be tested only against the specific unfair trade practices pleaded under Section 36A(1). The materials did not disclose any false or misleading statement, nor any unfair or deceptive method falling within the enumerated clauses. The Commission was not entitled to travel beyond the precise allegations in the notice, and doing so without further notice offended fairness and natural justice. Its approach was also influenced by subjective notions of unfairness rather than the objective statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: No case of unfair trade practice having been made out on the pleadings and materials, the cease and desist direction was quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of unfair trade practice must rest on specific pleaded allegations and legally sufficient material satisfying Section 36A, and a commission cannot expand the enquiry beyond the notice or rely on subjective fairness in place of the statutory test.

---