SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

B.N.KIRPAL, Y.K.SABHARWAL, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
HARIDAS EXPORTS – Appellant
Versus
ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION – Respondent


Counsel for the Appearing Parties :
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Mr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Mr. Dipankar P. Gupta, Mr. Anil B. Divan and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Mr. Diljeet Titus, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. Satya Mitra, Ms. Priya Hegde, Mr. Sohil Dutt, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Ramesh Singh, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Pooja Gautam, Ms. Meghna Srivastava, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Ms. P.S. Shroff, Mr. Sunil Dogra, Mr. T. Srinivas Murthy, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal and Ms. P.S. Shroff, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Civil Appeal Nos. 2330 of 2000, 3572 of 2000, 76 of 2002 and S.L.P. (C) No. 22549 of 2001:

B.N. Kirpal, CJI.—Leave granted.

1. These appeals are against orders passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “MRTP Commission”) whereby Indonesian manufacturers of float glass had been restrained from exporting the same to India at allegedly predatory prices.

2. Respondent No. 1 is an association of float glass manufacturers in India. During March-April, 1998, complaints were made by the said respondent to the Customs Department, alleging that the Indonesian manufacturers of float glass, in association with Indian importers were allegedly indulging in heavy under-invoicing. The respondents were, however, informed by the Customs Department in Calcutta that if they had any genuine grievance, the same could be made before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce dealing with anti-dumping complaints. On 26th May, 1998, the respondent No. 1 presented a complaint before the Designated Authority. This complaint appears to have been filed before the Anti-Dumping Authority and the same was possibly not pursued by the complainant.

3.






















































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top