https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109380 Under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the Commission's jurisdiction under section 10 depended on a restrictive trade practice within section 2(o), which required a trade practice having the actual or probable effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition. Competition was a jurisdictional fact to be assessed in a commercial sense, and the complaint did not allege any competition between the State and another party. The deeming provision inserted by the 1984 amendment to section 33(1) applied only to specified categories of agreements and did not extend to the complaint. The Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the complaint was not maintainable. en-us Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109380 Under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the Commission's jurisdiction under section 10 depended on a restrictive trade practice within section 2(o), which required a trade practice having the actual or probable effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition. Competition was a jurisdictional fact to be assessed in a commercial sense, and the complaint did not allege any competition between the State and another party. The deeming provision inserted by the 1984 amendment to section 33(1) applied only to specified categories of agreements and did not extend to the complaint. The Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the complaint was not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109380