STERLING INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE
LAWS(NR)-1977-11-1
MONO POLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Decided on November 01,1977

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H.M. Jhala, (Member) - (1.) THIS is an application dated the 5th September, 1977, by the Director of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the Director") for amendment of the notice of enquiry dated the 17th December, 1974, issued by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") suo motu under Sections 10(a)(iv) and 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondents are manufacturers, inter alia, of grinding wheels. In the original notice dated the 17th December, 1974, the Commission had notified its intention to institute an inquiry into the following restrictive trade practice indulged in by the respondents : " Charging prices on a 'slab basis' giving advantage or concessions in the matter of price to the buyers of larger quantities as compared to the buyers of smaller quantities of grinding wheels which leads to discrimination in charging prices for the sale and supply of grinding wheels and/or granting or allowing concessions or benefits in connection with, or by reason of, dealings in respect of the sale and supply of the grinding wheels."
(2.) In response to this notice, ultimately, respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 filed their memoranda of appearance, although in the case of respondent No. 1 the advocate withdrew their representation subsequently. All the respondents filed their replies from time to time. The Director filed his rejoinders to the replies of all the respondents. Respondent No. 4, through its counsel, expressed its willingness to submit to an order by the Commission and this fact has been recorded by the Commission in its order dated the 27th November, 1975. By its order dated the 27th November, 1975, the Commission framed the following issues with regard to respondents Nos. 1 and 5. For respondent No. 1. " Whether the allegation set out in the notice under Section 10(a)(iv) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act constitutes restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Act ? 2. To what relief, if any, the Director of Investigation is entitled ? " For respondent No. 5. " 1. Whether the allegations set out in the notice under section 10(a)(iv) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act constitutes restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Act? 2. If the answer to issue No. 1 above is in the affirmative, whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of any of the Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 38(1) of the Act as well as the balancing clause contained in the latter part of Section 38(1) of the Act ? To what relief, if any, the Director of Investigation is entitled ? " 3. By its order dated the 14th August, 1975, the Commission framed the following issues in respect of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 : " 1. Whether the application is not maintainable on any of the grounds set out in paras. 1 to 7 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3 ? 2. Whether the allegation set out in the notice under Section 10(a)(iv) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act constitutes restrictive trade practice within the meaning of section 2(o) of the Act ? 3. If the answer to issue No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether any or all of the respondents is or are entitled to the benefit of any of the Clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h) of Section 38(1) of the Act as well as the balancing clause contained in the latter part of section 38(1) of the Act?
(3.) TO what reliefs, if any, is the applicant entitled ?" 4. By Its order dated the 19th May, 1977, the Commission ordered that the proceedings against respondent No. 1 will be ex parte and thereafter the advocate for respondent No. 1 withdrew from the proceedings. Even regarding respondent No. 5, the advocate on record withdrew, while respondent No. 4 did not want to contest the issues raised in the notice. It is thereafter that the Director filed his application for amendment of the notice which is the subject-matter of the present order, and at the suggestion of the Commission he also filed material in support of his application dated the 5th September, 1977, by his letter dated the 30th September, 1977.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.