This tag is associated with 1 post

preliminary objections to the maintainability of the compensation applications filed by the appellants. They contended that the appellants had not initiated separate proceedings either under Section 10 or under Section 36B of the MRTP Act alleging unfair trade practices by the respondents and in the absence of any such separate proceedings initiated by the respondents before the MRTP Commission, the compensation applications of the appellants under Section 12B of the MRTP Act were not maintainable.- In fact, Section 12B was introduced in the MRTP Act by Act 30 of 1984 as an independent remedy for a claimant in addition to a suit that he may file to claim any loss or damage that he may suffer by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice as would be clear from sub-section (4) of Section 12B quoted above. -In the absence of any such indication of this intention of Parliament to make the provisions of Section 12B of the MRTP Act dependent on initiation of an inquiry or proceeding under Section 10 or Section 36B of the MRTP Act, the Competition Appellate Tribunal clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that interdependence of the provisions of Section 10 or Section 36B with Section 12B cannot be lost sight of and in the absence of a separate proceeding alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under Section 12B of the MRTP Act is not maintainable.We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, but leave it open to the respondents to raise a plea before the Competition Appellate Tribunal that the appellants have not made out any case of monopolistic or restrictive trade practice or unfair trade practice in terms of Section 12B of the MRTP Act and if such plea is raised it will be decided by the Competition Appellate Tribunal on its own merits following the decision of this Court in Saurabh Prakash v. DLF Universal Ltd. (supra). The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO._8920_ OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 28463 of 2011) Girish Chandra Gupta … Appellant Versus M/s Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO._8921_ OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17380 of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,880,951 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com