Unfair trade practice test: car booking and refund terms were held outside the statutory definition on the pleaded facts.

Booking and refund terms for car sales were held not to constitute an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, because the allegations in the notice of enquiry did not establish any false or misleading statement or representation within the invoked statutory clauses. The Commission could not expand the enquiry beyond the pleaded allegations without proper notice, and the price and refund terms disclosed the relevant commercial terms, including interest on refund. The Court also found that the Commission had relied on subjective notions of fairness rather than the objective statutory test, amounting to non-application of mind and breach of natural justice. The finding of unfair trade practice was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the booking amount and refund terms for the sale of cars amounted to an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The impugned order was tested against the precise allegations in the notice of enquiry and the statutory definition of unfair trade practice. The allegations did not show any false or misleading statement, nor did they establish any representation falling within the specific clauses invoked. The booking terms disclosed the price structure and the liability for refund with interest, and the Commission could not enlarge the enquiry beyond the stated allegations without giving proper notice. The order was also found to rest on subjective notions of fairness rather than the objective statutory test, and this amounted to a violation of natural justice and non-application of mind to the relevant statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The finding of unfair trade practice was unsustainable and the order of the Commission was set aside.

---