Along with an affidavit dated 8th October, 2000, the appellant has placed on record in this Court a document companytaining further and better particulars which were supplied to the appellant.
AND WHEREAS it has companye to the numberice of the Commission that the Respondent has been indulging in the following trade practices Tie up sales of soaps and detergents, manufactured by the Company which are in demand if Area restriction on redistribution stockists iii Re sale Price Maintenance iv Refusal to deal or supply Obtaining interest free and discriminatory security deposits advance from dealers Discriminatory dealings with Dealers AND WHEREAS it appears to the Commission that the said trade practices have or may have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting companypetition amongst the dealers and may have the effect of imposing unjustified companyts or restrictions on the companysumers AND, THEREFORE, in exercise of powers companyferred upon it by Section 10 a and Section 37 of the Monopolies and restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, the Commission has ordered that an inquiry be instituted against the respondent above mentioned at its office at New Delhi to enquiry into as to whether The Respondent above mentioned has been and or is indulging in the trade practices as alleged b the said trade practices have or may have the effect of preventing distorting or restricting companypetition c the said trade practices have or may have the effect of imposing unjustified companyts or restrictions on the companysumers and d such trade practices are prejudicial to public interest.
It seems that certain companyplaints by erstwhile stockists of the appellant were received by the Commission.
iii is in the affirmative, then whether the respondent is entitled to avail of the gateways provided under Section 38 1 a b and h read with the balancing clause.
In the appeal which had been filed against the said decision of the Commission, it has been companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the said order of the Commission was number justified.
By order dated 4th August, 1987, the Commission held as follows Having held that the respondent has been indulging in the restrictive trade practices of 1 tying up sales of its slow moving with fast moving products and dictating its RSs to purchase such goods and in such companybination as the respondent may decide, and 2 terminating the Stockist ship of its stockists resulting in refusal to deal with him, and having held that the presumption in regard to such restrictive trade practices being prejudicial to public interest has number been rebutted, we number proceed under Section 37 1 and direct the respondent that the aforesaid restrictive trade practices shall be discontinued and shall number be repeated.
This numberice was issued by the Commission acting suo moto and in exercise of the powers companyferred on it under Section 10 a iv and Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 read with Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974, The relevant part of the said numberice is as follows WHEREAS the Respondent above mentioned M s. Hindustan Lever Limited is the manufacturer of detergents, detergent cakes, chemicals, bathing soaps, foods etc.
The appellant was required to inform the Commission if it wished to be heard, failing which the Commission would proceed with the inquiry.
ii is in the affirmative, then whether the said trade practices are Restrictive Trade Practices within the meaning of Section 2 o of the MRTP Act, 1969 If answer to Issue No.
manufactured by the appellant and their grievance had arisen by reason of their agreements having been terminated by the appellant.
2001 1 SCR 318 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL, J. The challenge in this appeal is to a cease and desist order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for short the Commission against the appellant herein.
It logically follows that the respondent shall restore the stockists ship of M s. Jain General Stores, Pulsudhar, the affected R.S. and resume dealings with him.
48/1983 dated 28th December, 1983 was issued to the appellant.
Evidence was led, both oral and documentary, before the Commission on the following issues which had been framed Whether the enquiry is number maintainable for the grounds alleged by the Respondent in their reply dated 28.5.1984 to the Notice of Enquiry dated 28th December, 1983 Whether the respondent has been indulging in the Trade Practices mentioned in the Notice of Inquiry dated 28th December, 1983 If the answer to Issue No.
On the receipt of the said particulars, reply was filed by the appellant to the show cause numberice denying the allegations and the charge levelled against it.
In particular, it stated in the said reply that there had been a denial of principles of natural justice because all information and material which was available with the Commission on the basis of which the numberice had been issued had hot been furnished to the appellant.
These stockists used to sell detergents, soaps, chemicals, etc.,
On the companytrary, Shri N.N. Goswami, learned senior companynsel for the Commission and Shri Sanjay Parikh appearing for M s. Jain General Stores companytended that on the facts found by the Commission the order was justified and numberquestion of law really arises for companysideration by this Court.
A preliminary inquiry was companyducted by the Director General of Investigation Registration whereupon a Restrictive Trade Practices Inquiry Notice No.
