BAJAJ AUTO LTD. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL (I & R) & ANR.

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL (I & R) & ANR.

Neither the notice nor the application alleged that Bajaj Auto Ltd. indulged in or that the alleged trade practice has or may have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition in any manner. The required jurisdictional facts for maintainability under Section 33 and Section 2(o) were not present, rendering the notice and application not maintainable.

Parties
Appellant: Bajaj Auto Ltd.; Respondents: Director General (I & R) & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against MRTP Commission Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Trade Practices, Notice of Enquiry, Jurisdiction Under MRTP Act
Competition Law Trade Practices Restrictive Trade Practices Notice of Enquiry Jurisdiction Under MRTP Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Appellant

Director General (I & R) & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against MRTP Commission Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Enquiry and application against Bajaj Auto Ltd. alleging restrictive trade practices are maintainable under Section 33 and Section 2(o) of the MRTP Act, 1969
  2. 2 Whether the appellant indulged in restrictive trade practices as alleged
  3. 3 Whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are prejudicial to public interest

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the notice nor the application alleged that Bajaj Auto Ltd. indulged in or that the alleged trade practice has or may have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition in any manner. The required jurisdictional facts for maintainability under Section 33 and Section 2(o) were not present, rendering the notice and application not maintainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in RTP Enquiry No. 159 of 1996 dated 27 October 2000 set aside.