The court emphasized the importance of substantiating allegations of restrictive trade practices with sufficient evidence and highlighted the need for a clear establishment of prejudicial impact on public or consumer interest.

Ms. Moksh Mahajan, Member—M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries Limited is engaged in manufacture of fatty alcohol and other chemicals. It has been charged with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o) read with Section 33(i) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short, the Act). This is in a complaint filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) under Section 10(a)(iii) and Section 37 of the Act. The specific allegations levelled are manipulation of prices, supply of goods on payment of higher price and charging differential rates from various parties. These in turn are taken up from the complaint of one M/s. Galaxy Organics (P) Ltd., A-8, Shaheen, 153-154, R.C. Marg, Chembur, Bombay - 400 074, purchaser of goods of M/s. Aegis Chemical Industries (P) Ltd.

2. For having suffered losses at the hands of the party on account of its following the practice of restrictive trade, the complainant also sought compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,36,080/- on account of difference in the price charged as against mentioned in the purchase order along with the compound interest @ 21% per annum on the aforesaid amount.

3. Since both the complaint application as well as the application filed under Section 12B of the Act relate to the same cause of action pertaining to the same subject matter, we find it convenient to dispose them of by a common order.

4. The DG in its complaint in RTPE No. 299/1998, after referring to the facts and figures collected from the respondent as a result of the probe letter issued supported the allegations with the documents like purchase orders, orders of confirmation, correspondence exchanged between the parties etc. etc. After analysing the information as gathered from the informant/DG was of the view that the respondent which is the market leader of the product of Fatty Alcohol has manipulated the conditions of delivery of the product so as to impose unjustified cost resulting in loss and injury to the consumer. The trade practice is thus stated to be prejudicial to public interest.

5. Notice of Enquiry issued has been challenged on the ground of misplaced analysis based on insufficient material collected by the DG. A simple case of price hike on account of increase in cost of production has been construed to be a manipulation of price. A few cases of small difference in price charged from various purchasers on account of prompt payment and availability of credit facility have been generalized as a normal practice, contends the respondent. For want of availability of the product with the respondent, non-supply to Galaxy Group of Companies has been taken as a refusal to supply goods covered within the provisions of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent has thus sought discharge of Notice of Enquiry on the strength of facts available on record.

After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :

(a) Whether the enquiry is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in the preliminary objections raised by the respondents in the reply to the notice ?

(b) Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in RTPs as per the allegations made in the Notice of Enquiry ?

(c) If answer to issue No. 1 is in affirmative, whether such practices are prejudicial to the public interest, interest of the consumer or consumers in general ?

(d) Relief.

6. In this case, decision on the issues raised hinges mainly on the documents placed on record. The DG in its complaint has based his case solely on the allegations as levelled by the informant in its complaint. The main thrust of the DG's arguments is that the respondent has exploited its pre-dominant position in the market by manipulating conditions of delivery and price in respect of sale of fatty alcohol as reflected in one of the sale orders for 10,200 kgs. Acilol 1214. We find that the purchase order for 10,200 kgs. of Acilol 1214 was placed on the respondent by the informan