https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281483 The Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and held that territorial dealer allocation and restrictions on sales outside allotted areas are not restrictive trade practices when justified by the commercial setting, supply conditions, service network needs, and equitable distribution. It also held that an exclusive dealership covenant is not restrictive merely because it requires dealers to deal only in one manufacturer's vehicles; read with Sections 33, 37 and 38, such a covenant must actually restrict competition or offend public interest. On the facts, exclusivity was treated as promoting specialisation and after-sales service rather than suppressing competition. en-us Fri, 21 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:27:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281483 The Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and held that territorial dealer allocation and restrictions on sales outside allotted areas are not restrictive trade practices when justified by the commercial setting, supply conditions, service network needs, and equitable distribution. It also held that an exclusive dealership covenant is not restrictive merely because it requires dealers to deal only in one manufacturer's vehicles; read with Sections 33, 37 and 38, such a covenant must actually restrict competition or offend public interest. On the facts, exclusivity was treated as promoting specialisation and after-sales service rather than suppressing competition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281483