https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108541 The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission, determining that there was no concluded contract between the parties, and the respondent's actions did not amount to restrictive trade practices under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The Court advised that the complainant should seek remedy through a civil suit rather than an inquiry under the MRTP Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs, emphasizing that breach of contract terms alone, without evidence of manipulation or intent to impose unjustified costs, does not constitute restrictive trade practices. 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 The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission, determining that there was no concluded contract between the parties, and the respondent's actions did not amount to restrictive trade practices under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The Court advised that the complainant should seek remedy through a civil suit rather than an inquiry under the MRTP Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs, emphasizing that breach of contract terms alone, without evidence of manipulation or intent to impose unjustified costs, does not constitute restrictive trade practices. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108541