On the same date i.e. 29.4.87, an order was passed by the Commission directing the Director General I R to furnish to the appellant specific instances in support of the allegations in the numberice of enquiry.
Accordingly, a companyy of the Preliminary Investigation Report was furnished to the appellant.
On 21.4.88, the appellant riled its affidavit in reply to the interrogatories.
On 3.5.91, the impugned order was passed by the Commission inter alia holding that the appellant has been indulging in the restrictive trade practice of resale maintenance And companysequently passed a cease and resist order against the appellant.
On 5.8.87, a reply to the numberice of enquiry was made by the appellant.
It is against this order the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 55 of the Act.
On 3.8.89, an affidavit of the Marketing Director of the appellant was riled rebutting the allegation of re sale price maintenance and stating that the price lists issued by the appellant were merely recommendatory in nature and to ensure that the dealers do numberresell their products at prices higher than those mentioned in price fists.
It was further stated therein that the prices mentioned in the price lists issued by the appellant are the maximum recommended prices and have always been understood by the dealers to the maximum recommended prices.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.91 of the M.R.T.P. Commission in R.T.P. Enquiry No.5/86.
On 22.4.88, issues were duly framed by the Commission.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It amounted to restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 33 1 f of the Act.
On 29.4.87, an application was filed by the appellant for further and better particulars seeking directions from the Commission, requesting therein for a companyy of the Preliminary Investigation Report.
Director General I R did number produce any witness to prove the allegation of re sale price maintenance, but merely relied on the price list furnished by the appellant.
These statements made by the witnesses of the appellant were number companytroverted by the Director General I R .
On 7.10.87, a rejoinder was filed by the Director General I R along with an application under Regulation 74 of the Commissions Regulation 1974 serving interr rogatories upon the appellant.
41.26 of 1991.
The short facts leading to this appeal are as under On 10.2.87, a numberice of enquiry was issued suo motu by the Commission inter alia alleging that the appellant was indulging in the trade practice of re sale price maintenance by number mentioning in its price lists that the prices lower than those prices may be charged.
Ashok K. Desai, Ravinder Narain, Rajan Narain and Aditya Narain for the Appellant.
The retailers have, in fact, been selling at prices lower than the maximum recommended prices.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. This is an appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Commission , being a cease and desist order dated 3.5.91 under Section 37 1 of the Act.
On 7.12.87, an order was passed by the Commission upholding the objections raised by the appellant and modifying the interrogatories.
