M/S. HARIDAS EXPORTS versus ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 22-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, Y.K. SABHARWAL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
M/S. HARIDAS EXPORTS 
A 
v. 
ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
JULY 22, 2002 
,, " ' ' 
[B.N. KIRPAL, CJ. Y.K:·SABHARWAL'AND 
't '' , 
B 
,.,. . ; 
.,. 
· K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] ... ·1 
"I ,; ,, ·'"''''' 
' " 
" 
., 
, " 
I• 11 ', I' l11 .. 
, 1' : I• l. 
iK· 
L, 
}I 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices.Act, 1969-Sections fl2),, r 
2(c), 2(o), 2(u), 33(1)(1) and (ja), 36-A and. 37-Foreign Manufactwers ''C 
exporting goods into India and selling at predatory pric~omplaint. under.,; 
the Act .restrictive trade practice-Jurisdiction of MRTP. Commission--Plea , 
that Commission has no jurisdiction since sections 33(J)(j)and (fa) impliedly_, 
repealed by anti-dumping provisions-Held, anti-dumping provisions do not, 
per se oust the jurisdiction of Commission--/! can take action in respect of , 
imported goods or otherwise-However it cannot stop import and cannot D 
decide validity of the action of Government in permitting import of goods at 
predatory price---Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Sections 9-A. to 9-C- Customs 
Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on ' 
Dumped Articles and/or Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. 
· · .. ,, · 
Ju 
1 
• 
I• 
rl 
,I I; 
I -r I 
•. 
•1 
,. I 
Sec::on 12-A(l)-Temporary injunction--Grant of-Jurisdiction of., E . 
Commission-Held, could be granted on the basis of proof that restrictive 
trade practices likely to affect prejudicially the public interest, or interest of 
any trader, class of traders or traders generally or bf customers, and i:ot on : 
me;e allegation--Merely because an industry will find itself unable to compeie 
with imports from outside India can be no ground for exercising jurisdiction F 
under the Section. · 
,. 
- ' • 
'. 
' ... '~ 
II. 
Section 12-A Explanation II-Temporary Injunction-Grant a/-
Procedure for-Commission should normally give notice and hear the 
respondents before passing an order ofinjunction---Code o/Civil.Procedure,1 · 
1908-0rder XXXIX Rule 211. 
• 
'' ,, 
, 
• G 
.,. 
" 
a 
·11. 
Section 37.,-Cartel formation outside India-Export by the cartel _into 
India-Jurisdiction of MRTP Commission to interfere. wjt~ .cartel formatio~ 
Held, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Commission--But if the cartel 
carries out restrictive trade practice in -India then Commission will get 
jurisdiction. ' ' 
229 
,,. , .• 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
· Docthne-"Effect Doctrine "-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases- "goods "-Meaning of in the context of Section 
2(e) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 
The facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 2330 and 3572 of 2000; 76 of 2002 
B and SLP (c) No. 22549 of 2001 are that Respondent No.I, an association 
of domestic float glass manufacturers filed a complaint under Section 
33(1)(j), Ga) and Section 36-A read with Section 2(o) of Monopolies and 
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 before of Monopolies and Restrictive 
Trade· Practices Commission (MRTP Commission) against Indonesian 
C companies alleging that they were selling float glass at prices much lower 
than their cost of production and thereby were indulging in selling at 
predatory prices with an intent to eliminate competition and causing 
material injury to the interest of domestic float glass industry; and that 
the MRTP Commission passed injunction against the Indonesian 
companies restraining them from exporting float glass to India at allegedly 
D predatory prices. 
C.A. No., 3562 of 2000 is against th'e MRTP Commission's interim 
injunction which was subsequently confirmed, directing the appellant, an 
export cartel which used to produce natu~al soda and export it in India, 
not to indulge in the practice of cartelization by exporting soda ash to India 
E in the form of cartel directly or indirectly. 
F 
The questions for considerations before this Court were whether 
MRTP Act has extra territorial jurisdictions; whether the principle of 
"effect doctrine" has any application in India i.e. where action takes place 
and agreements are entered into outside India but the resultant adverse 
effect is experienced in India then can the MRTP Commission have any 
jurisdiction; whether anti-dumping provisions as provided in Customs 
Tariff Act, 1975 and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and 
Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for 
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 would oust the jurisdiction of MRTP 
G Commission; and whether impor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.