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

G.S.SINGHVI
Vimal Chandok – Appellant
Versus
Bright Star Hotel Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Complainant : Mr. Vimal Chandok, in person, on his own behalf and also on behalf of Complainant Nos. 2 and 3.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anupam Srivastava with Mr. Anil Chandel and Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Advocates.

ORDER :

G.S. Singhvi, Chairman

In this complaint filed under Section 2(o) read with Sections 10, 31, 36-A, 36-B, 36-D and 36-E and Sections 36 and 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short, ‘the Act’), the complainants have prayed that an inquiry be conducted into the monopolistic and unfair trade practices indulged by the respondents and that they be restrained from coercing the complainants to pay excessive maintenance charges and they be directed to restore electricity to Shop No. 148. The complainants have further prayed that such of the terms, conditions and covenants of the purchase and maintenance agreements executed between the parties, which constitute restrictive and unfair trade practices be declared void or be modified so as to make them compatible with the provisions of the Act. Another prayer made by the complainants is that the respondents be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,21,840 in lieu of the losses suffered by them and Rs. 20,000 per month till the excess amount collected from them is refunded. Lastly, the complainants ha

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