9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pli-cation No. 53 of 1993 wherein it has allowed the application for compen-sation under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac- tices Act, 1960 [for short "the MRTP Act"] filed by the Respondent No. 1 and has directed the appellant to refund to the first respondent a sum of Rs. 1,04,164 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum plus compensation ofRs. 5,000. Shortly stated the facts are : M/s. N.A. Rubber Industries through its partner Shri Nasiruddin, a partner of the applicant firm - respondent as well, placed an order in December, 1980 for the supply of one rubber mixing machine of size 14" x 36". Appellant agreed to supply the said machine to the respondent by its letter dated 10-12-1980. In terms of accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second hand parts and it has failed to fit the "oil system" and thereby appellant has indulged in unfair trade practice under section 36A(1) of the MRTP Act. 3. Appellant in its detailed reply apart from replying on merits took five preliminary objections : 1.That since the order was placed on the appellant in the year 1980 i.e. before the amendment of MRTP Act relating to unfair trade practice (section 36A) and compensation (section 12B) which were inserted with effect from 1st August, 1984, the action was not maintainable as these amendments do not have retrospective operation and, therefore, the compensation application was not maintainable. 2.The order of machine in question was not placed by the applicant but by the N.A. Rubber Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal has been filed. 6. Counsels for the parties have been heard at length. 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the order of the MRTP Commission deserve to be set aside and the application filed by the respondent under section 12B dismissed. Without going into the preliminary objections which have been raised, this appeal deserves to be allowed on another point as in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. MRTP Commission [2003] 41 SCL 98 (SC), in which one of us [Justice Sinha] was a member, analysed the section 36A of the MRTP Act and observed that a bare perusal of section 36A would clearly indicate that the following five ingredients are necessary to constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services, adopts one or more of the practices specified therein adopted and as a result thereof loss or injury has been caused to the consumers of such goods or services, either by eliminating or restricting competition or otherwise. It would furthermore clearly go to show that the two conditions precedent mentioned therein are required to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively." (p. 106) After having said so this Court observed that the Commission had committed a manifest error in holding that the actual loss or injury need not be caused to the consumers. 10. In the present case, we find that in the application filed by the applicant/r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
