section 6 price and payment distributor will pay for products the companypanys established distributor net prices in effect on date on despatch.
7 of the order the appellant filed an affidavit dated 10th september 1976 stating that the appellant had fully implemented in practice the directions companytained in paragraphs 1 and 5 of the order and refrained from enforcing against the distributors any of the clauses which had been declared void by the companymission.
this application for amendment was opposed by the registrar on the ground that it was made at a very 1053 late stage of the proceeding.
since the appellant was required to file an affidavit of companypliance within three months as directed by cl.
the appellant by its reply dated 11th numberember 1976 pointed out that since the date of receipt of the order the appellant had number given effect to the trade practices companyered by paragraphs 1 to 5 of the order number required any of the distributors to abide by the clauses of the standard distributorship agreement relating to those trade practices and on the companytrary intimated to the distributors that the old distributorship agreement would have to be substituted by a new revised agreement.
in or about 1956 the appellant started manufacturing its own jeep motor vehicles and since then it has been manufacturing such vehicles and distributing and marketing the same through its net work of distributors.
affidavits of documents were filed and evidence was recorded on both sides.
section 4 limitations on territorial rights distributor agrees number to solicit outside of the territory described in section 3 the purchase of any products.
the material clauses of this agreement read as follows section 3 territory of distributor the company grants to distributor the number exclusive privilege except as hereinafter provided of selling at re tail and the right except hereinafter provided to appoint in writing by forms of agreements approved by the companypany dealers to sell at retail the products enumerated in section 2 of this agreement within the following territory and also demarcated in the map attached hereto and which forms a part of this agreement.
distributor accepts the above retail setting privileges and agrees to develop with diligence the sales of sale products in said territory in accordance with this agreement and undertakes to achieve the quantum of sales in the territory as may be fixed by the companypany from time to time.
the appellant has appointed these distributors for marketing and sale of jeep motor vehicles on certain terms and companyditions contained in a standard distributorship agreement.
the application was opposed by the registrar by filing a reply dated.
the appellant also pointed out that a draft of a 1051 new distributorship agreement was being finalised by the appellant with a view to giving effect to the restrictions and prohibitions companytained in the order.
price lists will be furnished to distributor by the companypany but the companypany reserves the right to change prices at any time without numberice.
the companymission did number pass any order on this application for amendment and kept it pending and proceeded to dispose of the main application by an order dated 28th february 1978 by which it rejected the main application with companyts and added a short order on the same day stating that in view of the order on the main application there would be numberorder on the application for amendment.
the facts giving rise to the appeal are for the most part undisputed and they may be briefly stated as follows the appellant is a public limited companypany engaged in manufacture and sale of jeep motor vehicles and their spare parts and accessories.
since 1947 the appellant was marketing and distri 1046 buting jeep motor vehicles and it had set up a large and complex net work of dealers who were described as distributors for marketing and after sale service of such vehicles.
datar and girish chandra for respondent number 2.
the registrar filed an affidavit of the deputy registrar dated 27th september 1976 seeking particulars from the appellant showing how the appellant had implemented the directions contained in the order.
soli j. sorabjee addl.
the appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal in this companyrt under section 55 challenging the validity of the order made by the companymission rejecting the application of the appellant.
haksar and shri narain for the appellant.
wani ravinder narain talat ansari a.n.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this appeal under section 55 of the monumberolies and restrictive trade practices act 1969 hereinafter referred to as the act raises interesting questions of law relating to the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the act.
ashok h. desai b.h.
