( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 18th March, 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in A. S. T. No. 641 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellants herein had been dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy as also lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of this court.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein had filed an application before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, Delhi, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant herein has taken recourse to unfair trade practices.

( 3 ) IN the said proceeding an application for injunction has been filed which had been granted by an order dated 8th March, 1999. Questioning the said order a writ application was filed and upon dispensing with the requirement of Rule 27 of the writ Rules framed by this court, the learned trial Judge passed interim order in favour of the writ petitioner on 11th March, 1999. The respondents having been noticed, raised preliminary questions as regards the maintainability of the writ application.

( 4 ) BOTH the aforementioned contentions as had been raised by the respondents herein, as indicated hereinbefore, had found favour with the learned trial Judge as a result whereof the writ application was dismissed.

( 5 ) MR. Soumen Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant had principally raised three contentions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel submitted that although under section 55 of the Monoplies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 a forum of appeal before the Supreme Court of India has been created, the same has its own limitations. In that view of the matter, contends Shri Ghosh, as the appellant herein has raised a question of violation of the principles of natural justice by the Commission, this writ application could not have been thrown out on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. In support of the aforesaid contention strong reliance has been placed on AIR, 1969 SC 656 and AIR, 1971 SC 33. The learned counsel submits that in a case of this nature, normally, the Supreme Court does not exercise its jurisdiction and in support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed in the decision reported in AIR, 1998 SC 526 [hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. and Anr. ]. It has further been contended that the Commission acted illegality in passing the interim order of injunction as a result whereof, the entire scheme of the appellant shall fail and the application filed by the respondent herein would be allowed in its entirety. The learned counsel has, relied upon AIR 1987 SC 2186, AIR 1964 SC 1264, AIR 1997 SC 2838 and (1995)4 SCC 51. As regards the finding of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court, the learned counsel submitted that only because the application had been filed at Delhi and the impugned order has been passed by the Commission at Delhi, the same, by itself, would not disentitle this court from entertaining the writ application as a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction this court. In support of the said contention the reliance has strongly been placed upon AIR 1983 Cal 257 and AIR 1983 Cal 307.

( 6 ) MR. Jayanta Mitra, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that a bare perusal of section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 would clearly show that an order passed under section 12a of the said Act is also appealable in terms whereof, the Commission is empowered to pass an order of injunction. The learned counsel pointed out relying on or on the basis of the decision of the apex court in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 789 that as section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been incorporated by reference in the said Act, the old provisions thereof shall apply despite the fact that the same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document