9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbandi" had been introduced w.e.f. 19th August, 1995 in respect of certain lands including that of the respondent-complainant. The allegation in the complaint was that by the irrigation programme, the complainant's agricultural crops would be affected. The complaint charged the appellants with "having manipulated the conditions of delivery of service of supplying irrigation water" and having indulged in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The appellant questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint. The Commission negatived the preliminary objection raised by the appellant holding that Government Departments whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces which have been particularised as clauses (i) and (ii) of section 2(o) do not narrow down the definition of restrictive trade practice nor do they exclude the necessity of establishing the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition. (See Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Director General (Investigation & Registration) [2001] 2 SCC 4741 , 478, para 11). 4. Section 2(o) has also been construed by this Court in Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement [1977] 2 SCC 55 and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India [1979] 2 SCC 529. Both decisions have held that the element of competition must be present before the question of any restrictive trade practice would arise and that the concept of competit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 2(o). 6. The present case does not involve any agreement of the kind specified in section 33. It will, therefore, have to come under the definition of section 2(o) to be a restrictive trade practice at all. It has not been alleged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that there is any element of competition involved between the State and any other party. Even if one were to assume that the State was an undertaking as defined in section 2(v) and that the activity of arranging for the supply of water is a "service" as contemplated under the Act in the absence of this vital element of competition, the Commission could not have held that there was any restrictive trade practice within the meaning of section 10 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
