https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106822 Collecting a refundable security deposit without interest is not, by itself, a restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act; the practice must be shown on the facts to have, or likely have, the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition in the relevant market. Where the record contains no material showing an actual or probable competitive effect, a cease and desist order cannot be sustained. The absence of evidence of the relevant economic facts and circumstances makes a finding of restrictive trade practice unsustainable. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106822 Collecting a refundable security deposit without interest is not, by itself, a restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act; the practice must be shown on the facts to have, or likely have, the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition in the relevant market. Where the record contains no material showing an actual or probable competitive effect, a cease and desist order cannot be sustained. The absence of evidence of the relevant economic facts and circumstances makes a finding of restrictive trade practice unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106822