DIRECTOR GENERAL I AND R Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an enquiry which has been initiated by an application filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) (DG for brief) under Sec.10 (a) (iii) of the MRTP Act, 1969. In his application, the DG has alleged that Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (respondent hereinafter) has indulged in certain restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Sec.2 (o) and Sec.33 (1) of the Act. The averments of the DG in his application are summarized hereinunder :

(2.) The respondent is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tractors, spare parts and implements. For the purpose of sale and distribution of the said products, the respondent appoints and has appointed dealers on certain terms and conditions in a standard agreement format. The DG has alleged that the agreement between the respondent and the dealers contains certain clauses like Clauses 1, 10 (a), and 10 (b) which restrict the dealers to sell the products of the respondent only within an allocated territory thus attracting Sec.33 (1) (g) of the Act being a restrictive trade practice. Similarly, the DG submits that Clause 33 (1) (c) of the agreement restricts the dealers to deal only in the spare parts supplied by the respondent and forbids them from dealing in spare parts not supplied by it, thus attracting Sec.33 (1) (c) of the Act being a restrictive trade practice.

(3.) Based on the application of the DG, the Commission issued a Notice of Enquiry (NOE) on 30th March, 1988 charging the respondent of having indulged in the restrictive trade practices falling within the provisions of Sec.33 (1) (c), Sec.33 (1) (g) and Sec.2 (o) of the Act. It has been mentioned categorically in the NOE that the impugned agreement had been submitted by the respondent to the DG for registration. Registration of agreements falling within one or more of the clauses of Sec.33 (1) of the Act, is compulsorily required under Sec.33 read with Sec.35 of the Act.