Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969

The case concerned a flat purchase where the buyer paid seven instalments totalling Rs 4,53,750, but the developer cancelled the allotment in April 2005 and issued a pay order for refund. The buyer filed a complaint under the MRTP Act (later transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal) seeking possession of the f…

M/s Purolator India Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable filter elements, claimed deductions for cash discount, volume discount and sales tax while filing excise returns. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the cash‑discount deduction and affirmed duty on other items, leading to an appeal. The Supreme Court examine…

The appellants, buyers of apartments from DLF Universal Ltd., entered into an Apartment Buyer Agreement in 1993 promising possession within 2½‑3 years. Possession was delayed and the builder imposed extra charges, leading the buyers to allege unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (M…

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) invited applications for a self‑financing housing scheme in 1985. The respondent paid a registration deposit of Rs.15,000 and later declined the flat allotment, seeking a refund with 15% interest instead of the 7% stipulated in the scheme brochure. DDA refunded the amount with 7% i…

The Supreme Court examined whether non‑intermediary front‑running—where a person receives confidential information about a forthcoming large block trade and trades ahead of it—constitutes a prohibited fraudulent or unfair trade practice under SEBI’s Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, 2003…

The appellant, representing the deceased Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga, challenged the cancellation of a flat allotment by the builder K.L. Suneja & Ors., alleging unfair trade practice before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT). The CAT awarded compensation under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pract…

Anita Merchant booked three flats from Suneja Towers Private Limited, paid 60% of the price, but the builder failed to deliver possession even after the agreed period, leading her to file consumer complaints. The District Forum dismissed the complaints, but the State Consumer Commission reversed the decision, ordering …

Laurel Energetics Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) acquired 18% of Rattan India Infrastructure Ltd., the target company, in July 2014 at Rs 6.30 per share. In October 2015 it made an open offer to acquire the remaining shares at Rs 3.20 per share. SEBI held that the acquisition was not exempt under Regulation 10 of the SEBI Subst…

The appellants filed compensation applications under Section 128 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 before the MRTP Commission, which were later transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal after the MRTP Act was repealed. The respondents argued that the applications were not maintainable …

The petitioners applied for an industrial land plot, paid a part of the price but were denied possession on the ground of pending dues. They filed a complaint before the MRTP Commission, which on 13 September 2007 ordered the respondents to hand over possession and to furnish a fresh SSI certificate. The respondents fi…

Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. (TELCO) was challenged under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for demanding a booking amount for its Indica cars that allegedly included taxes, cess and transportation costs, which three complainants claimed was an excessive and unfair trade practice. The Monopo…

The Supreme Court examined whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) could entertain challenges to regulations made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) under Section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It held that the power conferred on TRAI by Sectio…

Rangi International Ltd appealed against orders of the Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal that dismissed its claim of unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The Supreme Court observed that both the Commission and the Tribunal perform important qu…