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: (i) whether the appeal under section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 was maintainable notwithstanding the substitution of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the Commission could revoke or amend its earlier order under section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; and (iii) whether the original cease and desist order was vitiated for want of material and reasons.
Issue (i): whether the appeal under section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 was maintainable notwithstanding the substitution of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Analysis: Section 55 incorporated the grounds then contained in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The later substitution of section 100 did not alter the incorporated grounds in section 55. The right of appeal under the special statute could not fluctuate with later changes in the general procedural provision referred to in it.
Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and the preliminary objection failed.
Issue (ii): whether the Commission could revoke or amend its earlier order under section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
Analysis: The power under section 13(2) is a wide corrective power intended to ensure that the order remains in conformity with the Act. It is not confined to the grounds in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may be exercised where the earlier order is shown to be plainly erroneous, based on no material, affected by a vital omission, or rendered unsustainable by relevant developments. The appellant's conduct did not amount to acquiescence or create estoppel.
Conclusion: The Commission had power to entertain the application under section 13(2), and the appellant was not barred by acquiescence or estoppel.
Issue (iii): whether the original cease and desist order was vitiated for want of material and reasons
Analysis: A restrictive trade practice can be found only on the basis of facts showing its actual or probable anti-competitive effect. The Registrar's application and supporting affidavit contained no such material, and the Commission's order merely recorded operative directions without reasons. A quasi-judicial order must disclose the reasons supporting it, and an order based on no material or lacking reasons is legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The original order was liable to be revoked as contrary to law.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Commission's refusal to reopen the matter was set aside, the earlier order was revoked, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the appellant an opportunity to reply and lead evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute incorporates the grounds of appeal from another provision, later amendment of that external provision does not alter the incorporated grounds; and a quasi-judicial restraint order affecting trade practices must rest on relevant material and recorded reasons, failing which it is open to correction under the statute's revocation power.