M/S. PAWAN HANS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

M/S. PAWAN HANS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The complaint does not disclose facts that constitute restrictive trade practice as defined under Section 2(o) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The dispute between parties was only a negotiation failure and at most a breach of contract, and did not result in prevention, distortion, or restriction of competition, nor were...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mis. Pawan Hans Ltd.; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Mis. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Trade Practice, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act
Competition Law Restrictive Trade Practice Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mis. Pawan Hans Ltd.

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Mis. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct alleged amounts to 'restrictive trade practice' under Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
  2. 2 Whether breach of contract or negotiation failure constitutes restrictive trade practice

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint does not disclose facts that constitute restrictive trade practice as defined under Section 2(o) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The dispute between parties was only a negotiation failure and at most a breach of contract, and did not result in prevention, distortion, or restriction of competition, nor were prices manipulated to impose unjustified costs or restrictions on the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs