TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission's Order Set Aside, Appeal Allowed, Case Remitted for Fresh Inquiry</h1> The appeal was allowed, the Commission's order was set aside, and the order dated 14th May 1976 was revoked. The case was remitted to the Commission for a ... Whether the appellant has made out any case for the exercise of the power of the Commission under section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969? Held that:- Allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Commission rejecting the application of the appellant under section 13(2), revoke the order dated 14th May, 1976, and remit the case to the Commission so that the Commission may dispose of the application of the Registrar under section 10(a)(iii ) in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The Commission will give an opportunity to the appellant to file a proper reply in conformity with the requirements of the Regulations and after taking such relevant evidence as may be produced by both parties, proceed to dispose of the application of the Registrar on merits in accordance with law Issues Involved:1. Interpretation and application of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.2. Validity of the standard distributorship agreement clauses.3. Compliance with procedural requirements for inquiry and appeal.4. The scope of the curial power under section 13(2) of the Act.5. The need for material evidence to establish restrictive trade practices.6. The necessity of providing reasons in quasi-judicial orders.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation and Application of the Act:The appeal under section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, raises questions about the interpretation and application of the Act's provisions. The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing and selling jeep motor vehicles, submitted its standard distributorship agreement for registration under the Act. The Registrar claimed that several clauses in the agreement constituted restrictive trade practices. The Commission, after an ex parte inquiry, restrained the appellant from enforcing these clauses.2. Validity of Standard Distributorship Agreement Clauses:The clauses in question included restrictions on the territory of distributors, limitations on territorial rights, price and payment terms, price changes, and exclusive dealing provisions. The Registrar argued that these clauses imposed restrictions on competition, leading to monopolization and unjustified costs for consumers. The Commission agreed and issued an order prohibiting the appellant from enforcing these clauses.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The appellant did not enter an appearance before the Commission, leading to an ex parte order. The appellant later argued that the application of the Registrar did not contain sufficient facts to establish restrictive trade practices, and no material evidence was provided during the inquiry. The Commission's order was challenged for being a non-speaking order, lacking reasons for its conclusions.4. Scope of Curial Power under Section 13(2):Section 13(2) of the Act allows the Commission to amend or revoke any order at any time. The court noted that this power is wide and unfettered, intended to ensure that orders are in conformity with the Act and continue to be justified. The power can be exercised to correct errors of law, consider new facts or circumstances, or address material changes in relevant circumstances.5. Need for Material Evidence:The court emphasized that a trade practice is restrictive only if it prevents, distorts, or restricts competition. This determination requires an inquiry into the economic facts and circumstances of the trade. The Registrar did not provide any material evidence to show that the clauses in the distributorship agreement had the effect of restricting competition. The Commission's order was based on no material and was therefore invalid.6. Necessity of Providing Reasons in Quasi-Judicial Orders:The court held that every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. The Commission's order did not provide any reasons for its conclusions, making it a non-speaking order. This lack of reasoning violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the order legally infirm.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, the Commission's order rejecting the appellant's application under section 13(2) was set aside, and the order dated 14th May 1976 was revoked. The case was remitted to the Commission for a fresh inquiry, giving the appellant an opportunity to file a proper reply and produce relevant evidence. The Commission was directed to dispose of the Registrar's application on merits in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
