DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INVESTIGATION And REGISTRATION vs MAFATLAL DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD.

IN the application filed by the Director General (INvestigation and Registration) (DG in short) under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (The MRTP Act in short), it has been alleged that the price list issued by the respondent does not stipulate that the goods can be sold at prices lower than those indicated in the price list. It has been stated that such trade practices fall within the ambit of Section 33(1)(f) of the MRTP Act as the dealers have not been given the liberty to sell goods at prices lower than those given in the price lists.

A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was accordingly issued to the respondent on 2.4.1997 under Section 10(a)(iii) read with Section 37 of the MRTP Act. In its reply to the NOE, the respondent denied the allegation of restrictive trade practices. DG filed a rejoinder to the reply of the respondent and on completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the enquiry is not maintainable for the preliminary objections taken by the respondent in its reply to the NOE ? (2) Whether the respondent has indulged in or is indulging in the restrictive trade practices listed in the NOE and the application of the DG ? (3) Whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest ? (4) Relief.

While DG relied entirely on documentary evidence, the respondent led oral evidence as well in addition to relying on documentary evidence. Arguments were finally heard on 20.4.2001.

At the very outset, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Dinesh Agnani invited my attention to the Full Bench ruling of the MRTP Commission dated 24.8.1999 in the case of DG (I&R) v. Infar India Ltd., in RTPE No. 320/1996 and pleaded that the instant case is fully covered by the aforesaid ruling. Learned Counsel for the DG, Mr. C.B.N. Babu reiterated that the price list issued by the respondent does not contain the stipulation that the dealers are at liberty to sell goods at prices lower than those mentioned in the price list. This being so, he argued that the impugned trade practice was violative of the provisions contained in Section 33(1)(f) of the MRTP Act. Learned Counsel for the DG, however, conceded that the present enquiry is fully covered by the Full Bench ruling of the MRTP Commission in DG (I&R) v. Infar India Ltd. (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent in support of his case.

IN the Full Bench ruling of the MRTP Commission referred to above, it has been held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 37(3) of the MRTP Act, no "Cease and Desist" order with respect to any restrictive trade practice need be passed if such trade practice is expressly authorised by any law for the time being in force. There is no denying the fact that the prices of the products in question are fixed under the Drug Control Order, 1995, which has the authority of law. IN this view of the matter, the impugned trade practice on the part of the respondent is squarely covered by the provisions contained in Section 37(3) of the MRTP Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, no case of restrictive trade practice is made out against the respondent. DG''s application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the MRTP Act accordingly fails and the Notice of Enquiry is discharged with no order as to cost. NOE discharged.