Mahindra And Mahindra LTD. vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1979 Supreme(SC) 69

A.P.SEN, JASWANT SINGH, P.N.BHAGWATI
Mahindra And Mahindra LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates:
A.N.HAKSAR, ASHOK H.DESAI, B.H.VANI, GIRISH CHANDRA, K.B.Datar, Ravindra Narayan, Shri Narain, SOLI J.SORABJI, Talat Ansari

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the true scope and ambit of the power of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under Section 13(2) to amend or revoke an order? Question 2? What constitutes a "restrictive trade practice" under Section 2(o) and how must the factual material be presented to show such a practice in proceedings under Section 37? Question 3? Whether an appeal under Section 55 is maintainable when the grounds have been affected by the modernization of Section 100, and how the rule of incorporation governs the grounds for appeal?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the true scope and ambit of the power of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under Section 13(2) to amend or revoke an order?

Question 2?

What constitutes a "restrictive trade practice" under Section 2(o) and how must the factual material be presented to show such a practice in proceedings under Section 37?

Question 3?

Whether an appeal under Section 55 is maintainable when the grounds have been affected by the modernization of Section 100, and how the rule of incorporation governs the grounds for appeal?

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- This appeal under S. 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raises interesting questions of law relating to the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Act. The facts giving rise to the appeal are for the most part undisputed and they may be briefly stated as follows:

2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of jeep motor vehicles and their spare parts and accessories. Since 1947 the appellant was marketing and distributing jeep motor vehicles and it had set up a large and complex network of dealers, who were described as distributors, for marketing and after sale service of such vehicles. In or about 1956 the appellant started manufacturing its own jeep motor vehicles and since then it has been distributing such vehicles and distributing and marketing the same through its network of distributors. The appellant has appointed these distributors for marketing and sale of jeep motor vehicles on certain terms and conditions contained in a standard distributorship agreement. The material clauses of this agreement read as follows :

"Section (3) : Terri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document