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…

The appellant, a US‑based manufacturer of medical diagnostic equipment, negotiated with the respondents for the supply of a whole‑body CT scanner. The first offer lapsed, and a second quotation for a refurbished scanner was accepted, but the respondents failed to open a correct letter of credit and did not obtain the r…

Manjul Srivastava applied for a residential plot in the Ghaziabad Development Authority's 1988 housing scheme, paid the full amount and received a reservation letter, but after nine years was informed she had not been allotted a plot and was offered a refund with 5% interest. She claimed the cancellation was an unfair …

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (M.R.T.P.) Commission issued a notice alleging that Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. engaged in resale price maintenance because its price lists did not state that dealers could charge lower prices. The Commission held that the price lists merely indicated rates per metre and la…

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 State of Uttar Pradesh introduced an irrigation programme that affected the agricultural lands of Gir Prasad, who filed a complaint under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 alleging that the State had manipulated the conditions of water supply and engaged in a restrictive trade practice. The M…

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 appellant purchased a flat from DLF Universal Ltd. and paid earnest money and instalments, but later could not continue payments and sought a refund of the amounts paid, proposing a swap for a smaller property. DLF refused to adjust the earnest money and the appellant filed an application before the Monopolies and …

The Supreme Court considered the sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. (TOMCO) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL), a subsidiary of the foreign multinational Unilever. The petitioners – nominal TOMCO shareholders, employee unions and consumer groups – challenged the scheme on six grounds, …

The Collector of Central Excise, Madras filed statutory appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal and sought condonation of delay for those appeals. A Single Judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the condonation applications under Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, 19…

The All India Float Glass Manufacturers Association complained that Indonesian exporters were selling float glass in India at predatory prices, alleging a restrictive trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act. The MRTP Commission issued an interim injunction restraining the exporter…

Bajaj Auto Ltd. and its subsidiary purchased 13,200 shares in Bajaj Tempo Ltd., a listed public company. The Board of Directors of Bajaj Tempo refused to register the transfer, citing four reasons: potential inter‑connection, lack of bona‑fide investment, competition, and the transferees being undesirable. The Company …

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…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd ran a newspaper contest that required consumers to purchase two toothbrushes to enter, offering various prizes. A complaint was filed with the MRTP Commission alleging that the contest was an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ac…

The appellant, Hindustan Ciba Geigy, placed an advertisement claiming its product Aerocol was manufactured by it and was a market leader in the UK. A complaint was filed alleging unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, leading the MRTP Commission to issue a n…

The appellants R.D. Goyal and others challenged the MRTP Commission’s finding that the issue of equity shares linked with redeemable non‑convertible debentures, before allotment, did not constitute "goods" under Section 2(e) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. They argued that shares (including…

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, a German manufacturer of printing machines, sold a machine to the Indian respondent and was later accused before the MRTP Commission of unfair trade practices and faced a compensation claim. The appellant challenged the Commission's jurisdiction on two grounds: a contractual clause that stipulated German…

The Supreme Court examined two appeals arising from an order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission that restrained Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. from using the phrase "Suraksha Chakra" in its Colgate Dental Cream advertisements. The Commission had granted a temporary injunction under Sectio…

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 …

The Cellular Operators Association of India (appellants) challenged the Government's decision to permit Fixed Service Providers to offer Wireless in Local Loop (WLL) with limited mobility, arguing that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) failed to consider the level‑playing‑field issue, viola…

Hindustan Lever Ltd. advertised its New Pepsodent toothpaste as 102% superior in antibacterial action to the "leading toothpaste", which the MRTP Commission identified as Colgate Dental Cream. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and a consumer filed a complaint under Sections 10, 36A(viii), 36A(x) and 36B of the Monopolies …

DLF Universal Ltd. and its trust, the colonizers of a Gurgaon colony, were directed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission to execute a fresh lease deed with a complainant who alleged unfair and restrictive trade practices in the allotment of school sites. The appellants did not challenge t…

The Supreme Court examined whether the sale of 39 lakh shares of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. by public financial institutions to Trishna Investments through BOB Fiscal Services, and the Controller of Capital Issues' consent to a mega issue of convertible debentures (including a Rs.310 crore preferential allotment to Reliance …

DLF Universal Ltd sold a flat to Ekta Seth & others under an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement that allowed the seller to increase the price and stipulated forfeiture of earnest money for default. The buyers paid installments for five years but stopped after the seller demanded a cost‑escalation sum and failed to deliver pos…

The appellants, Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and its subsidiary, were accused by a retail dealer of tying the sale of readymade trousers to the supply of other garments and of terminating the dealer's dealership when the dealer refused large trouser orders. The MRTP Commission held that a restrictive trade practice exist…

The Railway Board invited tenders for cast steel bogies and three large manufacturers (H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya) quoted an identical low price, leading the Tender Committee to suspect a cartel and recommend a counter‑offer of Rs. 76,000 per bogie. Post‑tender, the three firms offered a further reduced price of Rs. …

The appellant applied for a flat under the Indira Puram Housing Scheme in 1994 and paid all required installments, but the flat was never allotted. In 2001 he demanded a refund of the installments with 21% interest, but the authority refunded only the principal amount. He filed a claim under Section 12B (and Section 12…

An international car manufacturer entered into a joint venture with an Indian company that appointed Prem Nath Motors Ltd as its dealer. In response to advertisements, individuals applied for a Peugeot 309 car through Prem Nath Motors, paying a booking amount of Rs.25,000 in the name of the Indian principal. When the c…

Bombay Oil Industries challenged a Government order issued under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, alleging that it was not supplied with material necessary to contest the order. The Court examined whether the Government, as an administrative tribunal, must give adequat…

The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GOA) allotted a plot to Ved Prakash Aggarwal under its 1988 housing scheme, for which the respondent paid the full consideration. Years later GOA cancelled the allotment, claiming the respondent had failed in the lottery draw, and offered a refund. The respondent filed a complaint b…

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 Ludhiana Improvement Trust (Trust) had initiated a Model Town Extension Scheme that involved acquiring land from several co‑operative societies, including Shakti Co‑operative House Building Society (Society). The land of the societies was later exempted from acquisition under Section 56 of the Punjab Town Improveme…

Bajaj Auto Ltd. challenged a Notice of Enquiry issued by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission alleging that its dealer agreements involved restrictive trade practices under Section 33 of the MRTP Act. The appellant argued that the alleged clauses—territorial appointment, sales targets, and p…

Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) advertised several schemes for allotment of developed plots, collected deposits from allottees, and then failed to deliver possession within a reasonable time. The aggrieved allottees obtained orders from the MRTP Commission, Consumer Forum and High Court directing refund of their …

Om Prakash booked a tractor on 12‑12‑1990, paying an advance and was first on the dealer's booking list. The dealer delayed delivery, supplied tractors to lower‑ranked customers, and when the tractor was finally delivered on 21‑9‑1991 the price had risen, causing a loss of Rs 40,690 to the consumer. The consumer filed …

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 …

Technip SA and its French subsidiary Coflexip acquired a controlling stake in SEAMEC, an Indian company, prompting SEBI to invoke the Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover Regulations, 1997. SEBI held that French law governed the determination of when control was obtained, concluding that Technip gained contro…

The Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers' Association appealed to the Supreme Court against the Central Government’s order granting Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd permission to set up an ossein and gelatine plant in Rajasthan under Section 22 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The Association cl…

Hindustan Lever Ltd (the appellant) challenged a cease‑and‑desist order issued by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission. The Commission had received complaints from former stockists alleging that the appellant engaged in restrictive trade practices such as tie‑ups, area restrictions and refus…

The appellant, Mis. Peico Electronics, terminated the dealership of its second dealer (R‑2) under Clause 29 of a standard form agreement. R‑2 complained before the MRTP Commission alleging several restrictive trade practices, including territorial allocation, discrimination, and a clause (Clause 7) that allowed the com…

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…

Mis. Pawan Hans Ltd. sought flats for its employees and entered negotiations with Mis. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. over price and the requirement of an unconditional bank guarantee. The parties could not agree on the guarantee clause, the Memorandum of Understanding was never signed and the deal collapsed.…

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…

Mis Voltas Ltd. entered into exclusive distribution agreements with numerous manufacturers, containing territorial and exclusive dealing clauses. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) issued notices under Section 10(a)(iii) and Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act…

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…

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd., a manufacturer of water purifiers, advertised that its products provided 100% safe drinking water instantly and remained bacteria‑free in storage. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, under the MRTP Act, instituted an inquiry and the company accepted a Cease and Desist O…

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…

Nirma Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of washing powders, launched a prize‑lottery scheme by placing coupons in its detergent packs. A consumer complaint alleged that Nirma had raised the price of its detergent shortly before the scheme to recover the value of the prizes, constituting an unfair trade practice under Sec…

The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ under Article 32, directed the Union of India to fill the vacancies in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission within three weeks, later extending the deadline to 7 July 1990. The Union, represented by Secretary A.N. Verma, failed to appoint a Chairman…

The Supreme Court examined whether a company, being a juristic person, can be prosecuted under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 when the statute mandates both imprisonment and fine. The appellants argued that because a company cannot be imprisoned, the provision could not apply to them. The Court…

A complaint was lodged before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission against a computer training institute for admitting students to unrecognised courses and for publishing misleading advertisements. The Commission issued an interim injunction and, after the institute’s service advisor (the ap…

M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines appealed against an order of the MRTP Commission that held it guilty of unfair trade practice for a deficiency in cargo service. The complainant alleged that two parcels were delayed, causing loss, and the Commission treated the delay as an unfair trade practice under Sections 36A(ii), (iv…

The Rajasthan Housing Board (RHB) was alleged by several homebuyers, including Parvati Devi, to have delayed construction, demanded additional payments and failed to hand over possession of allotted houses. The complainants filed a petition before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission invokin…

The appellant had been allotted a plot by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) after paying registration, reservation and the first two instalments. He delayed further payments, alleging that the Authority had not completed development and therefore possession was delayed. The GDA issued a letter on 28‑Feb‑1995 de…

The appellant applied for a self‑financing flat under a Delhi Development Authority scheme, paid the first four instalments and was allotted a flat. The DOA issued a show‑cause notice for non‑payment of the fifth instalment and claimed that a demand letter dated 11‑Sept‑1996 had been served, invoking the statutory pres…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (M&M) sought a declaration under Section 72A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, to carry forward the accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of International Tractor Company of India Ltd. (ITCI) after their amalgamation. The Specified Authority, after a screening committee, recommended that ITCI…