JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J. :—These appeals have been filed under Section 55, of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).

2. The appellant had entered into agreements with large number of companies, who are respondents in different appeals, in respect of distribution of different machineries and equipments within different territories of India. The companies, who are respondents, to the different appeals have been manufacturing different types of machines and instruments, which under the terms of the agreements are to be distributed by the appellant as the Marketing Company. The appellant has been appointed as Buyer (Sole Importer) on the terms and conditions mentioned in different agreements.

3. On 26-11-1986, notices were issued under Section 10 (a) (iii) read with Section 37 of the Act, informing the appellant that the agreements between the appellant and the different companies, some of which have their Head Offices in foreign countries contain conditions which amount to restrictive trade practices under clauses (a) and (c) of Section 33 (1), of the Act. In the notices aforesaid, the terms and conditions in different agreements which are alleged to be violative of Section 33 (1) (a) and (c) of the Act were reproduced. Pursuant to the notices aforesaid, show cause was filed in different cases initiated by the Commission against the appellant. Documents and affidavits were also filed on behalf of the appellant in support of its stand that none of the agreements referred to in the notices issued to the appellant related to restrictive trade practices, calling for any action under the Act. The Commission, however, by the impugned judgment and order directed the appellant in respect of each of the 15 enquiries to discontinue the restrictive trade practices as mentioned in the Notice of Enquiry, and not to repeat the same in future. It was also directed that the objectionable clauses, as mentioned in the Notices be deleted from the respective agreements, within 8 weeks of the receipt of the said order.

4. All the appeals were heard together, since the controversy, which has been raised, is more or less similar in all the appeals, and as such facts are being referred to from Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 1994, which was heard as the leading case. It appears that the agreement in that case had been entered into between the appellant and Respondent No. 4 M/s. Societe Genevoise D, Instruments De Physique, Geneve, through its Secretary, on 29-11-1956. The Director General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as the DG) took objection in respect of three of the clauses of the agreement and on his application being filed before the Commission, notice was issued to the appellant on 26-11-1986 saying that the following terms of the agreement amounted to restrictive trade practices, within the meaning of the Act :

"2. The Buyer shall not sell the goods of the Seller to any person who is not residing or carrying on business within the Territory nor to any person residing or carrying on business within the Territory for the purpose of resale by such person outside the Territory."

"3. The Buyer shall use his best endeavours to promote the interests of the Seller and specifically shall not deal in or sell goods which could compete with those of the Seller."

"6. For the consideration aforesaid the Seller agrees not to sell any goods as mentioned before to any individual or firm within the territory other than the Buyer and all enquiries and orders received by the Seller from the Territory shall be referred to the Buyer. The Seller shall further not quote for not deliver (sic) his goods to any firm outside the Territory for import into the Territory except with the previous consent of the Buyer and at terms agreed upon with the Buyer."

5. It is prope