9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of alternative remedy. 2. Lack of territorial jurisdiction. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Interim order of injunction by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. 5. Discretion exercised by the trial judge. Detailed Analysis: 1. Existence of Alternative Remedy: The court examined whether the writ application should be dismissed due to the existence of an alternative remedy. The appellant argued that despite the alternative remedy under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, the writ application should be considered because the principles of natural justice were allegedly violated. The court acknowledged that judicial review is not inhibited by the existence of an alternative remedy but noted that it is a self-imposed restriction by the High Courts. The court emphasized that the nature of the forum (Supreme Court) plays a crucial role, as it can provide a more efficacious, speedy, and cheaper remedy compared to a writ application. The court concluded that the existence of an alternative remedy justified the refusal to entertain the writ application. 2. Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: The appellant contended that the court should have jurisdiction since part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. However, the court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the existence of an alternative remedy. The trial judge's lack of detailed reasoning on this point was noted, but the court found it unnecessary to address the territorial jurisdiction question due to the resolution of other issues. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant claimed that the principles of natural justice were violated when the Commission refused an adjournment despite new facts being introduced in a supplementary affidavit. The court scrutinized the Commission's order and found that the appellant had been given an opportunity to address the new facts, and the arguments were heard before reserving the order. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the appellant was not denied an opportunity to present their case. The court also highlighted that even if there was a violation, the appellant failed to show any prejudice caused by such violation, which is a necessary condition for invoking the principles of natural justice. 4. Interim Order of Injunction by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission: The appellant challenged the interim order of injunction granted by the Commission, arguing that it would lead to the failure of their entire scheme. The court noted that the Commission's power to pass such orders is appealable under Section 55 of the Act. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address the merits of the dispute, including the interim order, making the writ application unnecessary. 5. Discretion Exercised by the Trial Judge: The court evaluated whether the trial judge's discretion in dismissing the writ application was exercised improperly or perversely. The court found that the trial judge's discretion was sound and not exercised contrary to any legal principles. The court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge's discretion unless it is shown to be exercised wrongly or perversely. The court concluded that the trial judge's discretion was appropriately exercised, and no interference was warranted. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the existence of an alternative remedy, the lack of violation of natural justice, and the appropriate exercise of discretion by the trial judge justified the dismissal of the writ application. The court emphasized the importance of utilizing the alternative remedy provided under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and upheld the trial judge's decision. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
