https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108541 Refusal to finalise a memorandum of understanding and to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee during negotiations for sale of flats did not amount to a restrictive trade practice under section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The parties were still at the stage of offers and counter-offers, so no concluded contract existed; the bank guarantee dispute was treated as a contractual disagreement rather than manipulation of prices or delivery conditions. The later sale of the flats to others at a lower price also negatived any inference of an attempt to extract an enhanced price or impose unjustified costs. On these facts, the complaint did not satisfy the statutory ingredients and civil remedies, if any, were the proper course. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108541 Refusal to finalise a memorandum of understanding and to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee during negotiations for sale of flats did not amount to a restrictive trade practice under section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The parties were still at the stage of offers and counter-offers, so no concluded contract existed; the bank guarantee dispute was treated as a contractual disagreement rather than manipulation of prices or delivery conditions. The later sale of the flats to others at a lower price also negatived any inference of an attempt to extract an enhanced price or impose unjustified costs. On these facts, the complaint did not satisfy the statutory ingredients and civil remedies, if any, were the proper course. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108541