2004 (2) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rbandi" had been introduced w.e.f. 19th August, 1995 in respect of certain lands including that of the respondent-complainant. The allegation in the complaint was that by the irrigation programme, the complainant's agricultural crops would be affected. The complaint charged the appellants with "having manipulated the conditions of delivery of service of supplying irrigation water" and having indulged in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The appellant questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint. The Commission negatived the preliminary objection raised by the appellant holding that Government Departments which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es which have been particularised as clauses (i) and (ii) of section 2(o) do not narrow down the definition of restrictive trade practice nor do they exclude the necessity of establishing the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition. (See Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Director General (Investigation & Registration) [2001] 2 SCC 4741 , 478, para 11). 4. Section 2(o) has also been construed by this Court in Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement [1977] 2 SCC 55 and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India [1979] 2 SCC 529. Both decisions have held that the element of competition must be present before the question of any restrictive trade practice would arise and that the concept of competiti....