<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (5) TMI 951 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104736</link>
    <description>Restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act requires a practice having the actual or probable effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition; in the absence of material showing such effect, the finding and consequential direction to file an affidavit were unsustainable and were set aside. Unfair trade practice requires proof of a misleading or deceptive representation and cogent evidence of unfairness in the sale or supply of services; without examination of the contractual terms and necessary findings on evidence, the conclusion could not stand and was also set aside. The Commission&#039;s orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh adjudication after both sides were given an opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 951 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104736</link>
      <description>Restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act requires a practice having the actual or probable effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition; in the absence of material showing such effect, the finding and consequential direction to file an affidavit were unsustainable and were set aside. Unfair trade practice requires proof of a misleading or deceptive representation and cogent evidence of unfairness in the sale or supply of services; without examination of the contractual terms and necessary findings on evidence, the conclusion could not stand and was also set aside. The Commission&#039;s orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh adjudication after both sides were given an opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>