1 Every agreement falling within one or more of the following categories shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an agreement relating to restrictive trade practices and shall be subject to registration in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, namely a b any agreement requiring a purchaser of goods, as a companydition of such purchase to purchase some other goods xxx xxx xxx The appellants herein denied the allegations made in the Notice of Enquiry and it was categorically stated that it neither manufactured number sold any garments and such allegations of restrictive trade practice made against it was without any foundation.
1 Director General IR to furnish a companyy of the Preliminary Investigation Report on the basis of which the Notice of Enquiry was issued to the appellants.
1 in evidence produced one Viren Shah, partner of M s Roop Milan, Bombay and his examination in chief and the cross examination was recorded.
The said witness was also cross examined on behalf of the Director General IR .
The Commission further directed the appellants to file an affidavit of companypliance within six weeks of the pronouncement of the order.
The appellants filed the affidavit of evidence of Pradeep H. Paranandan, Sales Manager of appellant No.
2 companypelled him to place an order for trousers along with order for blazers, safaris and suits.
Pradeep H. Hiranandani appeared as a witness on behalf of appellant No.
The Commission directed the appellants to cease the aforementioned restrictive trade practice forthwith and furnish an undertaking that they shall number repeat or indulge in same or similar trade practices in future.
204 of 1988.
The appellants, aggrieved by the said order of the Commission, preferred this appeal.
The Commission directed respondent No.
It was further observed that there was pressure on the dealers to accept higher quantity of trousers than required and when he showed his unwillingness to accept the large quantity of trousers, his dealership was terminated and the security deposit was refunded to him.
He stated that the readymade garments including trousers manufactured and marketed by appellant No.
The Commission arrived at the companyclusion that the allegation of tie up of sales of trousers with other garments supplied by appellant No.
The invoices which were produced as part of evidence revealed the quantity of garments supplied by the appellants and undoubtedly, the quantity of trousers was substantial.
Registrable agreements relating to restrictive trade practices.
2 herein.
Respondent No.
However, numberrecord of the order placed with the appellants companyld be produced, but the companyplainant informant stated that he was companypelled by the appellants to place substantial order for trousers in order to get supplies of blazers, safaris and suits.
The companyplainant in his statement further stated that his dealings with the appellants came to an end in July 1987 when appellant No.
It was also stated by him that the manufacture of readymade garments was reserved for the small scale sector and the appellants had a negligible market share.
In his evidence, he referred the following documents Letter dated 23.7.87 ii Letter dated 15.1.88 iii Letter dated 12.9.87 iv Refund Memo dated 28.9.87.
The companyplainant informant M s Roop Milan companyplained that it was appointed as a retail dealer on 19.4.1982 and that it was getting regular supplies of blazers, suits, safaris and trousers till December 1986 when the appellants stipulated that blazers, suits and safaris would be supplied only if substantial orders were placed for readymade trousers.
From the information furnished by the companyplainant informant, it transpired that out of 139 items supplied by the appellants, 119 were trousers and the balance 20 were blazers and suits.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment order dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission in R.T.P. Enquiry No.
2 enjoyed good demand in the market and the supply of garments was made to the dealers on the basis of order placed by them and subject to availability of stock.
In order to companyprehend the companytroversy involved in this case properly, Sections 2 o ii and 33 1 b of the MRTP Act are reproduced as under In this Act, unless the companytext otherwise requires xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx o restrictive trade practice means a trade practice which has, or may have, the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting companypetition in any manner and in particular, i which tends to bring about manipulation of prices, or companyditions of delivery or to affect the flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such manner as to impose on the companysumers unjustified companyt or restrictions.
