1994 (12) TMI 262 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Review of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission's order under section 13(2) of the Act regarding transfer of shares and jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with restrictive trade practices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The applicant sought a review of the Commission's order dated 27-1-1994 under section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The original application involved the transfer of 800 Preference Shares to the respondent-company and alleged unjustified costs and restrictions due to the respondent's actions.

2. The Commission advised the applicant that the matter of share transfer falls under the Company Law Board's jurisdiction and suggested remedies available under the Companies Act, 1956. The applicant now seeks a review of this advice in the present application under section 13(2).

3. The applicant reiterated the same facts in the review application and requested a review of the Commission's communication for natural justice. The applicant did not introduce any new facts but emphasized the need for a fair hearing.

4. The main issue raised by the applicant was the Commission's jurisdiction to address the refusal of share transfer as a restrictive trade practice. The respondent claimed that the transfer was stalled due to a dispute among family members, advising the applicant to obtain a succession certificate, which was not done.

5. The Commission highlighted that alternative remedies are available under the Companies Act and Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 for share transfer disputes. The Securities Contracts Act outlines grounds for refusing share transfers, emphasizing the responsibility of the company in such cases.

6. The Commission deliberated on whether the applicant could invoke the MRTP Act when other statutory remedies were available. Section 4 of the MRTP Act allows consumers to seek redress under the Act in addition to other laws, subject to meeting the Act's provisions and the Commission's satisfaction for inquiry.

7. The applicant's allegations of manipulation of share delivery conditions and deceptive practices by the respondent were examined. The Commission found no evidence of manipulation, unjust costs, or restrictions imposed by the respondent, nor any deceptive or unfair practices.

8. While acknowledging the availability of remedies under the MRTP Act despite other options, the Commission concluded that the relevant provisions of the Act were not attracted in the case. As a result, the application for review was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the Commission upheld the original decision, emphasizing the need for the applicant to establish the applicability of the MRTP Act's provisions in cases involving restrictive trade practices.