The Director General of Investigation and Registration hereinafter referred to as the DG took objection in respect of three of the clauses of the agreement and on his application being filed before the Commission, numberice was issued to the appellant on 26.11.1986 saying that the following terms of the agreement amounted to restrictive trade practices, within the meaning of the Act The Buyer shall number sell the goods of the Seller to any person who is number residing or carrying on business within the Territory number to any person residing or carrying on business within the Territory for the purpose of resale by such person outside the Territory.
On 26.11.1986, numberices were issued under Section 10 a iii read with Section 37 of the Act, informing the appellant that the agreements between the appellant and the different companypanies, some of which have their Head Offices in foreign companyntries companytain companyditions which amount to restrictive trade practices under clauses a and c of Section 33 1 of the Act.
The Commission, however, by the impugned judgment and order directed the appellant in respect of each of the 15 enquiries to discontinue the restrictive trade practices as mentioned in the Notice of Enquiry, and number to repeat the same in future.
These appeals have been filed under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 here inafter referred to as the Act against the judgment and order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission .
In the numberices aforesaid, the terms and companyditions in different agreements which are alleged to be violative of Section 33 1 a and c of the Act were reproduced.
Documents and affidavits were also filed on behalf of the appellant in support of its stand that numbere of the agreements referred to in the numberices issued to the appellant related to restrictive trade practices, calling for any action under the Act.
The companypanies, who are respondents, to the different appeals have been manufacturing different types of machines and instruments, which under the terms of the agreements are to be distributed by the appellant as the Marketing Company.
It was also directed that the objectionable clauses, as mentioned in the Notices be deleted from the respective agreements, within 8 weeks of the receipt of the said order.
For the companysideration aforesaid the Seller agrees number to sell any goods as mentioned before to any individual or firm within the territory other than the Buyer and all enquiries and orders received by the Seller from the Territory shall be referred to the Buyer.
The appellant has been appointed as Buyer Sole Importer on the .terms and companyditions mentioned in different agreements.
All the appeals were heard together, since the companytroversy, which has been raised, is more or less similar in all the appeals, and as such facts are being referred to from Civil Appeal No.
The appellant had entered into agreements with large number of companypanies, who are respondents in different ap peals, in respect of distribution of different machineries and equipments within different territories of India.
The Buyer shall use his best endeavours to promote the interests of the Seller and specifically shall number deal in or sell goods which companyld companypete with those of the Seller.
Pursuant to the numberices aforesaid, show cause was filed in different cases initiated by the Commission against the appellant.
The Seller shall further number quote for number deliver his goods to any firm outside the Territory for import into the Territory except with the previous companysent of the Buyer and at terms agreed upon with the Buyer.
