Restrictive trade practices in stockist agreements upheld where wide clauses enabled compelled purchases, price control, and area allocation.

Wide contractual clauses in stockist agreements may themselves constitute a restrictive trade practice, and their legality is to be judged by their meaning and probable effect on competition rather than proof of actual misuse. Clause 5 was treated as permitting compelled purchase and resale price maintenance, while Clause 9 was treated as giving unreasonably wide control over redistribution, transport, and stock availability, amounting to area allocation and a restraint on trade. The Court distinguished the earlier truck-distribution precedent because this case concerned ordinary consumer goods without a comparable service obligation or public necessity. The Commission's refusal to save the clauses under statutory gateways and its application of the rule of reason were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether clauses 5 and 9 of the redistribution stockists agreement constituted restrictive trade practices capable of being modified or voided under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The Court treated the introduction of wide contractual clauses in stockist agreements as a trade practice in itself and held that the legality of such clauses must be tested by their meaning and their probable effect on competition, not merely by proof of actual misuse. Clause 5 was found to confer a power enabling the company to compel purchase and acceptance of goods in quantities and combinations at its discretion and to support resale price maintenance, while still leaving scope for misuse contrary to the Act. Clause 9 was held to vest an unreasonably wide power in the company to control redistribution, transport, and availability of stock, amounting to area allocation and a restraint capable of restricting trade. The Court distinguished the earlier truck-distribution precedent on the basis that the present case involved ordinary consumer goods, no comparable service obligation, and no established public necessity justifying such powers. The Court also upheld the Commission's approach in refusing to treat the clauses as saved by the statutory gateways, and found no error in the Commission's application of the rule of reason to the clear language of the clauses.

Conclusion: The impugned clauses were rightly treated as restrictive and unreasonable, and the Commission's modifications and directions were sustained against the appellant.

---