MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The appeal under s.55 of the Act is maintainable because the grounds for appeal are those in the original s.100 CPC, incorporated as of the time the Act came into force, irrespective of subsequent amendments. The Commission's order dated 14th May, 1976 was invalid due to absence of reasons, even though it was ex parte, as quasi-judicial orders require reasons. The Commission's power under s.13(2) was exercisable and the order was liable to be revoked.

Parties
Appellant: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.; Respondents: Union of India & Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 January 1979
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S. 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Statutory Interpretation—reference Vs Incorporation, Quasi Judicial Orders—requirement for Reasons
Competition Law Statutory Interpretation Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 Statutory Interpretation—reference Vs Incorporation Quasi Judicial Orders—requirement for Reasons

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Appellant

Union of India & Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S. 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal under s. 55 of the MRTP Act is maintainable in light of the amendment to s. 100 CPC
  2. 2 Scope of the Commission's power under s. 13(2) to amend/revoke its orders
  3. 3 Whether the Commission is obliged to give reasons for its ex parte order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal under s.55 of the Act is maintainable because the grounds for appeal are those in the original s.100 CPC, incorporated as of the time the Act came into force, irrespective of subsequent amendments. The Commission's order dated 14th May, 1976 was invalid due to absence of reasons, even though it was ex parte, as quasi-judicial orders require reasons. The Commission's power under s.13(2) was exercisable and the order was liable to be revoked.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Commission rejecting the application under s.13(2) set aside
  • Order dated 14th May, 1976 revoked