MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 24-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
if-;. 
1038 
MAHINDRA & MAIDNDRA LTD~ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
January 24, 1979 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, JASWANT SINGH AND A. P. SEN, JJ.j 
Monopolies & Restrictiv-e Trade Practices Act, 1969-S. 13(2) and .55·-
Scope of-Nature of order passed under s. 13(2). 
Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission-If shr!dd give 
reasons for its order even in ex~parte orders. 
C 
Registrar of Restrictive Trade 
Agreements·-~Obligations under the Act 
____j_ 
when presenting an application alleging restrictive trade practices in an agree-
ment. 
l.Maerpretation of statutes-Reference and· incorporation of one enactment in 
llnother-D1Jtinction between-Substantial que:;1io11 of law-Meaning of. 
D 
SectiOn lO(a) (iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 
1969 empowers the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission 
to enquire into any restrictive trade practices upon an application made to it 
by th~ Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements. 
Section 
13 (2) 
provides 
that "any order made by the Commission _may be amended or revoked at 
any time i11 the manner in which it was made." Section 55 provides that any 
person aggrieved by an order made by the 
Central 
Government or the 
E 
Commission under s. 13 or s. 37 may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court 
on one or more of the grounds specified in s. 100, Code of Civil Procedure~ 
1908. 
On the date on which the Act came into force s. 100 C.P.C. specified 
three grounds on which a second appeal could lie to the High Court one of 
them being that the decision appealed against was contrary to law. By an 
F 
amendment made in 1976 s. 100 was substituted by la new 
section 
which 
provides that a second appeal shall lie to the High Court only if the High 
Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question, of law. 
G 
B 
The appellant, who wns a manufacturer of jeep 
motor 
vehides, their 
spare parts and accessories, submitted for registration to the 
Registrar 
of 
Restrictive Trade Agreements, standard distributorship 
agreements 
entered 
into by it with its distributors. After registering the 
agreements, in his 
application to the Commission, the Registrar alleged that certain clauses 
in 
the agreement related to restrictive trade practices and that some of them were 
prejudicial to public interest. 
The appellant, in reply to the Commission's notice, stated that it did not 
wish to be heard in the proceedings before the Commission, pointing out at 
the same time that there was nothing in the impugned clauses of the 
agree~ 
ment which could be said to constitute restrictive trade practices the reasons 
whereof had_ alreadv been explained in itS reply. 
I 
. I 
. i-
.. 
I·• 
' 
. ""' 
~· 
• 
• 
MAHINDRA LTD. v. UNION 
1039 
The Reg;r;trar flied before the Commission an alfidavit in support of his 
A 
.application but that too did not contain any further or additional 
material 
J:han ~'hat \Vas set out in his application. No other evidence, oral 
or 
docu· 
mentary, \Vas produced by him before the Commission in support of the 
al1eg<1tion that the agreement constituted a restrictive trade practice. 
By its order dated May 14, 1976 the Comn1ission declared certain clauses 
,of the appellanfs distributorship agreement to be void. 
While correspondence 
B 
·was going on between the Registrar and the appellant on the submissiori of a 
revised distr;brnorship agrecn1cnt, this Court in Tata Enghwcting & l.ocon1oti1·e 
Co. Ltd. v. REgistrar of Restrictive Trade Practices, [1977] 2 SCR 685 gave its 
interpretation on the relevant provisions of the Act. 
Thereupon the 
appel~ 
Jant made an application to the Comn1ission p0inting out that it did not 
contest the enquiry proceedings under s. 37 in 1he first instance because the 
·Commission's decision in the Telco case 
\Va~ directly applicable; but 
now 
C 
that that decision had been reversed by the Supreme Court in 
appeal, 
its 
order dated May 14, 1976 needed amendn1cr.i:/modification. 
An ::ipplication 
under s. 13(2) read V.'ith regulation 85 \vas accordingly 1nade for revocation, 
amendment or modification of the Con1mission's order of 
May 14, 
1976. 
The Commission rejected this application by an order dated 28th February 
1978. 
In its appeal under s. 55 of the Act itnp1igning the Comn1ission"s 
order 
dl3..ted 28th February 1978 the appellant contended that (1) the Registrar's 
application alleging restrictive trade pn1cticcs did not set out any facts sho\1/~ 
ing hov.' the 

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