LexTATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. versus THE DIRECTOR (RESEARCH) FORAND ON BEHALF OF DEEPAK KHANNA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 373 TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. A v. THE DIRECTOR (RESEARCH) FORAND ON BEHALF OF DEEPAK KHANNA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2069 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 7, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] B Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - c ss. 36A(1)(i),(ii),(iv) and (vi) and 360(1) - Complaints - Against company engaged in manufacturing and selling of automobiles - Alleging indulgence in unfair trade practice by demanding excessive amount for booking of cars and by including the likely taxes, cess and transportation cost - D Preliminary Investigation Reports were submitted - Notice of Enquiry issued alleging indulgence of the company in unfair trade practices falling u/s. 36(1)(i),(ii),(iv) and (vi) - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission directed the company to cease and desist from continuing E with the practices complained of - On appeal, held: The allegations and materials against the company do not make out a case of unfair trade practice - The Commission has travelled beyond the specific a/legations in the Notice of Enquiry, which is violative of the rules of fairness and natural F justice- It being flagrant violation of audi alteram partem rule, renders the impugned order invalid and bad in law - Since no case of any unfair trade practice is made out, there is no scope of order u/s. 360(1). Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD 1. The order of the'Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission appears to be largely G 373 H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 108.C.R. A influenced by a conclusion that the appellant should not have asked for deposit of an amount above the basic price, because in the opinion of the Commission it was unfair for the appellants to keep excise and sales tax .with itself for any period of time. Such conclusion of the B Commission is . based- only upon subjective considerations of fairness and do not pass the objective test of law as per precise definitions under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, C 1969. [Para 13] [365-B-D] 2. The Commission could not have travelled beyond the specific allegations in the Notice of Enquiry because such a course would violate rules offairness and natural justice. The scope of enquiry could have been enlarged D only after serving further notice with necessary details of allegations ;:tnd supporting facts. This was clearly not done by the Commission. It is a flagrant violation of audi alteram partem rule. It renders the impugned order invalid and bad in law. The order is also bad for non application E of mind to requirement of law as stipulated in Section 36A(1) of the Act and the relevantfacts. [Para 10] [383-G- H; 384-A] 3. The enquiry, as per the notice, was to cover:- (a) F whether the respondent has been indulging in the above said unfair trade practice(s) and (b) whether the said unfair trade practice(s) is/are prejudicial to public interest. The Commission failed to keep in mind the precise allegations against the appellant with a view to find out G whether the facts could satisfy the definition of Unfair Trade Practice(s) as alleged against the appellant in the Notice of Enquiry. The Commission was apparently misled by the Preliminary Investigation Report. [Paras 11 and 12] [384-0-F] H 4. The allegations and materials againstthe appellant TELCO LTD. v. THE DIRECTOR (RESEARCH) FOR & ON 375 BEHALF OF DEEPAK KHANNA do not make out a case of unfair trade practice against A the appellant. Nor there is any scope to pass order under Section 36-0(1) of the Act when no case of any unfair trade practice is made out. [Para 14] [385-E] Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Parvati Devi (Smt) (2000) s sec 104:2000 (3) scR 934 ; Mis Lakhanpal National Limited vs. M.R. T.P. Commission and Anr. (1989) 3 SCC 251: 1989 (2) SCR 979 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2000 (3) SCR 934 1989 (2) SCR 979 referred to. referred to. Para 7 Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2069 of 2006. B c D From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2006 of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission New E Delhi in U.T.P.E. No 86, 87 and 90of1999. Ashok H. Desai, Ravinder Narain, Kanika Gamber, Kishan Rawat, Sidharth Banthia, Rajan Narain for the Appellant. A.K. Sanghi, Madhavi Diwan, Sadhana Sandhu, Sushma F Suri, P. Parmeswaran, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.