1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 13.11.2000 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (“the Commission” for short) which raises the issue of interpretation of Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (“the said Act” for short).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that an application under Section 12-B of the said Act for compensation is maintainable as a separate legal remedy irrespective of the other legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner while on the other hand Respondent No.2, Bank of Baroda, claims that such an application is not maintainable in view of the earlier legal proceedings instituted by the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company was incorporated and registered as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1975 and is a recognized export house dealing with export of carpets, durries and other allied products. The petitioner rooted its transaction in trade through Bank of Baroda since its very inception. The petitioner claims to have authorized one Mr. Girwar Singh, Manager and Mr.Sharad Shah, Accountant to jointly operate its accounts with R-2/Bank in pursuance to resolutions passed on 01.06.1987 and 12.05.1989. These two persons were divested of the power to operate the account by resolution dated 31.05.1990 and 24.02.1993 respectively.

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that in view of its adherence to the financial discipline of R-2/Bank, the facilities advanced by R-2/Bank were enhanced including grant of packing credit facilities to the extent of Rs.75 lakhs and foreign bill purchase of the export consignment up to the extent of Rs. 95 lakhs.

5. In February, 1996 when Mr.Sharad Shah went on leave, the Director had an occasion to deal with R-2/Bank when for the first time it came to light that there have been numerous illegal acts of omission and commission in respect of the funds of the petitioner and there had been mis-utilization and mis-appropriation out of the accounts with respondent no.2/Bank. It is alleged that such acts were in collusion with certain officials of R-2/Bank including its the then Chief Manager resulting in large scale defalcation of the funds of the petitioner-Company.

6. The petitioner requested its auditors to conduct an independent enquiry and reports were submitted. R-2/Bank, however, refused to co-operate. The petitioner claims that there have been improper transaction of funds and on non-crediting to the account of the petitioner. All endeavours to sort out the disputes failed. On the other hand, the R-2/Bank started taking steps to freeze the accounts and credit facilities of the petitioner-Company and the petitioner changed its bankers in July, 1996.

7. The petitioner instituted three civil suits against R-2/Bank in respect of the alleged void cheques on which unlawful monies were drawn from its accounts and for rendition of accounts. A writ petition was also filed in the Rajasthan High Court in respect of the unlawful transfer of funds and the failure of the petitioner to co-operate.

8. These proceedings were followed up by an application filed by the petitioner under Section 12-B of the said Act on the assertion of the petitioner that the respondents had indulged in unfair and restrictive trade practices which caused grave loss to the petitioner and thus the respondents were liable to compensate the petitioner for the losses.

9. The aforesaid application was contested by R-2/Bank. The said respondent pleaded that in view of the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the application under the said Act was not maintainable. In terms of the impugned order, the Commission agreed to the said plea of the respondents and came to the conclusion that the Trial Court proceedings could not go on in view of the certain orders even earlier passed by