- (1.) This appeal is by Uttar Pradesh Electronics Corporation Limited (Corporation) and others. It is directed against the order dated 28/01/1992 and the subsequent order dated 13/03/1992 in Restrictive Trade practices Enquiry No. 12 of 1992 before the Monopolies and Restrictive trade Practices Commission by which an interlocutory order was granted ex parte on 28/01/1992 and which, in view, of the divergent opinion between the two members on the application for its vacation, is continuing to operate. The injunction restricts the appellant ". . from indulging in the restrictive trade practice by entering into any negotiation without making a general offer of shares to the public at large including the applicant. . ".
(2.) The Corporation holds 40% of the shareholding in the company "uptron Colour Picture Tubes Limited" (Company). Two other Japanese entrepreneurs hold 11% and 5% shares respectively. Public Financial institutions hold 33% shares and the balance of 11% is with the general public. The Corporation, it seems, decided to shed its equity participation in that undertaking and decided to invite offers from reputed and established entrepreneurs to take over the equity holding of the corporation, which carried with it, the participation in the control of the "company" and its enterprise. The advertisement issued in this behalf on january 10,1992 reads: "Updc is intending to reduce its percentage share in equity holding in favour of reputed consumer electronics company having large turnover (Group turnover around Rs. 200 crores) and substantial interest in consumer electronics and good track-record in electronics exports. For obtaining forms and for further details regarding submitting offers and other information, please contact personally within 10 days. "
(3.) Respondent 3 who is stated to be a dealer in stocks and shares filed an application before the Commission under Section 2{i) (a) (i) read with section 2 (I) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act) airing a grievance that this advertisement, insofar as it restricted the choice of transferee to those who had a group turnover of' Rs. 200 crores, was a trade practice restrictive in character and claimed certainreliefs said to arise therefrom. An application under Section U-A of the act for an interlocutory injunction was filed and on 28/01/1992 an ex parte injunction in terms aforesaid came to be granted. The applicant's a application for vacating that order has run into trouble as the two members before whom it came have differed and the conflict has no reasonable prospect of being resolved by a third member as the post of the chairman remains unfilled for quite some time now. One of the members, in effect, held that the application was not entertainable under the Act as really no trade was at all involved. The other member took a diametrically opposite view.;