RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD versus SMT. PARVATI DEVI ETC.

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD versus SMT. PARVATI DEVI ETC.

The Commission's orders holding the Board guilty of restrictive and unfair trade practices were unsustainable, as there was no finding of facts or evidence that the Board adopted unfair or deceptive practices, nor did its actions restrict competition as defined by law. Proper inquiry and examination of terms and conditions were necessary before passing such orders.

Parties
Appellant: Rajasthan Housing Board; Respondent: Smt. Parvati Devi; Respondent: Geetanjali Mohan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Commission's orders quashed and set aside; matter remitted back to Commission for fresh disposal.
Legal Topics
Unfair Trade Practice, Restrictive Trade Practice, Delay in Construction and Allotment, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
Competition Law Consumer Protection Unfair Trade Practice Restrictive Trade Practice Delay in Construction and Allotment Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajasthan Housing Board

Appellant

Smt. Parvati Devi

Respondent

Geetanjali Mohan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's actions constituted restrictive trade practice under Section 2(o)(ii) of MRTP Act, 1969
  2. 2 Whether the Board's actions amounted to unfair trade practice under Section 36-A(1)(i) & (vi) of MRTP Act, 1969

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission's orders holding the Board guilty of restrictive and unfair trade practices were unsustainable, as there was no finding of facts or evidence that the Board adopted unfair or deceptive practices, nor did its actions restrict competition as defined by law. Proper inquiry and examination of terms and conditions were necessary before passing such orders.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Commission's orders quashed and set aside; matter remitted back to Commission for fresh disposal.

Orders

  • Commission's orders in RTPE No.100 of 1994 and UTPE/RTPE No.15 of 1994 quashed and set aside.
  • Matters remitted to Commission for fresh disposal in accordance with law.