RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. versus M.R.T.P. COMMISSIONS AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 26-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. 
v. 
M.R.T.P. COMMISSIONS AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 26, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ac~ 1969/The Monop-
olies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commissions Regulation, 1974. 
A 
B 
Sections 2(o), 33(1)(/), 37(1) and 55/Regulatii:m 74-Restrictive trade C 
practice-Price lists-No indication in price lists that rates prescribed are 
maximum recommended rates-Held appellant indulged in restrictive trade 
practice-'Cease and desist' order of M.R. T.P. Commission upheld. 
The M.R.T.P. Commission issued a notice of enquiry on 10.2.1987 
suo motu alleging that the appellant in the appeal was indulging in the D 
trade practice of re-sale price maintenance by not mentioning in its price 
list that the prices lower than those prices may be charged, and that this 
amounted to restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 
33(1)(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1989. An 
application was filed by the appellant on 29.4.1987 for further and better E 
particulars seeking directions from the Commission and requesting for a 
copy of the Preliminary Investigation Report and in pursuance thereto the 
Director- General (I & R) was directed to furnish the specific instances in 
support of the allegations in the notice of enquiry. 
-
A reply was filed by the appellant to the notice of the enquiry on 
F 
5.8.1987 and on 7.10.1987 a rejoinder was filed by the Director General 
under Regulation 74 of the Commission's Regulation, 1974 serving inter-
rogatories upon the appellanL 
The Commission passed an order on 7.12.1987 upholding the objec- G 
lions raised by the appellant and modifying the interrogatories and on 
22.4.1988, issues were duly framed by the Commission. 
On 3.8.1989 the Marketing Director of the appellant filed an affidavit 
rebutting the allegation of re-sale price maintenance and stating that the 
price lists issued by the appellant were merely recommendatory in nature H 
127 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
and to ensure that the dealers do not re-sale their products at prices 
higher than those mentioned in the price lists, and that they have always 
been understood by the dealers to be the maximum recommended prices. 
On 3.S.1991 the Commission passed an order holding that the ap-
pellant had been indulging in the restricting trade practice of re-sale 
maintenance and consequently passed a cease and resist order against the 
appellant. 
Io the appeal against the aforesaid order to this Court under Section 
SS of the Act, it was contended on behalf of the appellant relying on Tata 
Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. v. R.S. TA., [1977] 2 SCR 685 and 
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, [1979] 2 SCR 1038 at 1074 
that the definition of restrictive trade practice in Section 2(o) of the Act 
"is a pragmatic and result-oriented definition", and that the legality of an 
agreement or regulation does not depend upon whether or not it restrains 
competition but the test is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely 
regulates, and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such 
as may suppress or even destroy competition. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Section 33 deal with agreements relating to restrictive 
trade practices. Therefore, it is not correct to content that this is only for 
the purpose of registration of agreements. Exhibits A-2 to A·S are the 
copies of price list issued by the appellant. The dealers are required to 
display the price list in their show rooms. [134C, G) 
2. The price lists indicate the rate per metre of each of the textile 
product manufactured. There is nothing to indicate that the dealers could 
charge a price lower than those mentioned in the price list. [134H,13SA] 
3. The Commission has rightly pointed out that there is not even an 
indication in the price list that the rates prescribed are the maximum 
G recommended rates. In the absence of the same, the dealers could sell their 
products even at lower rates. This will encourage the consumers to ask any 
~ 
_A 
. "'!' 
·y 
-
rebate in the rates indicated in the price list. [1358] 
.~ 
4. The definition of 'restrictive trade practice' in section 2(o) of the 
Act is an exhaustive one and not an inclusive one. It is for the price list, 
H not having any indication as to the maximum price, that the charge is made 
-
-..; 
l.._ 
)- . 
/ 
T 
RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS "· 

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