The judgment emphasizes the importance of recording specific findings and providing notice of specific allegations to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld in legal proceedings.

B.N. Kirpal, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to a cease and desist order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short “the Commission”) against the appellant

herein.

2. It seems that certain complaints by erstwhile stockists of the appellant were received by the Commission. These stockists used to sell detergents, soaps, chemicals, etc., manufactured by the appellant and their grievance had arisen by reason of their agreements having been terminated by the appellant.

3. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Director General for Investigation and Registration whereupon a Restrictive Trade Practices Inquiry Notice No. 48/1983 dated 28th December, 1983 was issued to the appellant. This notice was issued by the Commission acting suo motu and in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 10(a)(iv) and Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 read with Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974. The relevant part of the said notice is as follows :

“WHEREAS the respondent above mentioned (M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited) is the manufacturer of detergents, detergent cakes, chemicals, bathing soaps, foods, etc.;

AND WHEREAS it has come to the notice of the Commission that the respondent has been indulging in the following trade practices:

(i) Tie-up sales of soaps and detergents, manufactured by the Company which are in demand;

(ii) Area restriction on re-distribution stockists;

(iii) Re-sale price maintenance;

(iv) Refusal to deal or supply;

(v) Obtaining interest-free and discriminatory security deposits / advance from dealers;

(vi) Discriminatory dealings with dealers;

AND WHEREAS it appears to the Commission that the said trade practices have or may have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition amongst the dealers and may have the effect of imposing unjustified costs or restrictions on the consumers;

AND THEREFORE, in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 10(a)(iv) and Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, the Commission has ordered that an inquiry he instituted against the respondent above mentioned at its office at New Delhi to enquire into as to whether —

(a) the respondent above mentioned has been and/or is indulging in the trade practices as alleged;

(b) the said trade practices have or may have the effect of preventing/distorting or restricting competition;

(c) the said trade practices have or may have the effect of imposing unjustified costs or restrictions on the consumers; and

(d) such trade practices are prejudicial to public interest.”

4. The appellant was required to inform the Commission if it wished to be heard, failing which the Commission would proceed with the inquiry. The said notice does not indicate that any document or complaint or report was furnished to the appellant along with the said notice. According to the appellant, and there does not appear to be any serious dispute about it, it requested the Commission to supply to it the material or report on the basis of which the show-cause notice had been issued. Along with an affidavit dated 8th October, 2000,. the appellant has placed on record in this Court a document containing further and better particulars which were supplied to the appellant.

5. On the receipt of the said particulars, reply was filed by the appellant to the show- cause notice denying the allegations and the charge levelled against it. In particular, it stated in the said reply that there had been a denial of principles of natural justice because all information and material which was available with the Commission on the basis of which the notice had been issued had not been furnished to the appellant.

6. Evidence was led, both oral and documentary, before the Commission on the following issues which had been framed —

“(i) Whether the enquiry is not maintainable for the grounds alleged