https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111819 Jurisdiction under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 arises only where the notice and supporting material disclose a restrictive trade practice with the requisite effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition. A bare notice without foundational allegations on competition impact does not satisfy the statutory threshold. Clauses on dealer location, sales targets and resale pricing were examined and found not to establish territorial restriction, tying, or a prohibited resale-price restraint: the location wording did not by itself allocate territory, the sales-target clause reflected performance expectations, and the pricing term permitted sales below the recommended price. On that basis, the alleged practices fell outside the specified provisions. en-us Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111819 Jurisdiction under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 arises only where the notice and supporting material disclose a restrictive trade practice with the requisite effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition. A bare notice without foundational allegations on competition impact does not satisfy the statutory threshold. Clauses on dealer location, sales targets and resale pricing were examined and found not to establish territorial restriction, tying, or a prohibited resale-price restraint: the location wording did not by itself allocate territory, the sales-target clause reflected performance expectations, and the pricing term permitted sales below the recommended price. On that basis, the alleged practices fell outside the specified provisions. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111819