BESTAVISION ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BESTAVISION ELECTRONICS LTD
MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) M/s Bestavision Electronics Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, for short) has challenged the legality and validity of Order dated 25 th August, 2005 passed by Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission, in short) in Unfair Trade Practice enquiry No. 417/1997 titled "Modern Radios and Ors. v. Bestavision electronics Ltd. and Anr." By the impugned Order, the Commission has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA, for short) for stay of further proceedings in the complaint filed by M/s. Modern Radios and another (hereinafter referred to as the respondents, for short) under Section 36A r/w Section 12B of the Monopolies Restrictive and Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).
(2.) It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under the Act are akin to a suit for recovery of money and therefore Section 22 of SICA is applicable. Reliance was also placed upon Sections 12(1), 12A(2), 12B(2) of the Act which makes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to the proceedings before the Commission and also on Section 12(2) of the Act by virtue of which the Commission is regarded as a Court for the purpose of Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 195, Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Tubes Limited v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr. reported in 1993 Vol.78 Comp. Cases 803.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lloyds Insulations (India) Limited v. Cement Corporation of India reported in 2001 (57) DRJ 606. He also referred to the prayer clause made in the complaint filed before the Commission. It was stated that the core issue raised before the Commission is whether the petitioner had indulged in unfair trade practice. Reference was also made to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited v. Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council and Ors. reported in .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.