The respondent discriminated against the companyplainant and gave a favoured treatment to their other dealer, viz.
1616 of 1987.
The factual background leading to the filing of the companyplaint is as follows The appellant Company manufactures and sells certain audio products.
In the said numberice, as many as five restrictive trade practices alleged to have been companymitted by the appellant were set out.
In the year 1985, the appellant appointed the 2nd respondent hereinafter referred to as R 2 or companyplainant having its place of business at Gwalior as another dealer.
The appellant pleaded that the power reserved to it under Clause 29 of the Agreement was bona fide exercised in its business interest.
It has a vast network of dealersabout 1800 throughout the companyntry who are appointed on principal to principal basis.
However, while discussing charge No.2, the Commission having held that the allegation of dumping of unwanted products has number been proved and that the refusal to send supplies as per the orders of the companyplainant was quite justified having regard to the defaults on the part of the dealer, declared that Clause 7 of the Agreement per se amounted to restrictive trade practice and therefore the respondent shall take action to purge the same.
The Commission came to the companyclusion that the allegations 3 and 5 supra stood proved and the other allegations were number established.
Accordingly, a numberice of enquiry was sent to the appellant on 21.1.1988.
However, it was stayed by the Bombay High Court on a writ petition filed by the appellant.
In terms of this clause, the appellant by its numberice dated 23.9.1987 gave 30 days numberice to R 2, terminated the dealership on expiry of the numberice period.
In Gwalior, the appellant had a dealer by name M s. Evergreen operating since long from its shop at Sarafa Bazar.
Clause 29 of the Agreement provided for termination of agreement by either party by giving to the other 30 days numberice in writing.
The appellant while denying the charges took the stand that the companyplainant was number companyducting the business properly inasmuch as the sales dropped companysiderably during the period January, 1987 to September, 1987, that the companyplainant delayed retirement of documents on more than one occasion and even issued a cheque which was dishonoured by the Bank.
An agreement dated 15.11.1985 which, it is number in dispute, is in standard form was entered into.
The practice is a restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Section 2 o ii of the MRTP Act.
The Commission further directed the appellant number to give effect to the termination of dealership of the companyplainant 2nd respondent herein and to ensure the supply of Philips products at least to the extent of the supply made in the year 1986 subject to the placement of necessary orders by the companyplainant.
VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. This is an appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 referred to hereinafter as the Act against the order of the Commission in R.T.P. Enquiry No.
The Commission, having held that the appellant indulged in certain restrictive trade practices prejudicial to public interest, directed the appellant to desist from indulging in such practices in future and to amend the offending clause in the dealership agreement.
