Holding

A contractual jurisdiction clause does not bar the MRTP Commission's jurisdiction, which depends on the unfair trade practice itself occurring in India, and the second objection must be decided on evidence.

Summary

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 law and arbitration, and the claim that it neither provided services nor carried on business in India. The Commission rejected both objections, holding it had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a contractual jurisdiction clause does not oust the MRTP Commission's statutory jurisdiction, as the Act provides remedies distinct from contract law, and that jurisdiction depends on the unfair trade practice occurring in India, not merely its effect. The Court also clarified that the second objection must be decided on evidence, directing the Commission to consider it accordingly. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

The effect of a contractual choice of law/jurisdiction clause on the MRTP Commission's jurisdiction under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
Whether the MRTP Commission can entertain a complaint against a foreign entity that does not carry on business in India, i.e., the applicability of the 'effect doctrine' in unfair trade practice cases.
Whether an objection to the Commission's jurisdiction is a demurrer or a preliminary issue requiring evidence.
Whether the alleged unfair trade practice must have taken place in India for the Commission to have jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 23, s. 28
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969s. 12-B(1), s. 14, s. 33, s. 360, s. 36A, s. 36B, s. 37(1), s. 4(1)

Subjects

MRTP Actunfair trade practicejurisdictionchoice of law clauseextraterritorialitydemurrerstatutory remediescontract lawforeign corporationcompensation

Judgment

A MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG
v.
MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. AND ANR.

APRIL 19, 2004

B [RUMA PAL AND. P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.]

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Act, 1969:

Se_ction 12-B-Compensation-Jurisdiction to entertain-A company
C carried on business of manufacturing printing machines in Germany and was
incorporated under German LaW:--Complainant had its registered office in
India-Company agreed to sell printing machine to the complainant and
shipped the same from Germany to India-Parties had agreed that the
applicable law in the event of any dispute would be a particular Law- _
D Complainant filed compensation application against the said company before
the MRTP Commission-The Commission held that it had jurisdiction to
entertain the claim for compensation-Correctness of-Held: The remedies
available under the Act are additional to the usual remedies available under
the Contract Act-The jurisdictional clause in the agreement would, therefore,
not apply to_proceedings before the Commission-Hence, the Commission had
E jurisdiction to entertain the compensation application.
Section 12-B-Compensatioh-Jurisdiction to entertain-Complaiant
filed compensation application before the MRTP Commission against a
company-Company objected to t~e jurisdiction of the Commission on the
F grounds that (i) the pariies had agreed that the applicable law in the event of
any dispute would be a partuclar Law; (ii) that the company neither provided
any service nor carried on any trade or trade practice in India for the purpose
ofthe Act-Commission rejected both the grounds-Correctness of-Held: An
objection to jurisdiction can either be taken by way of demurrer or raised as
an issue in the proceeding-The first objection was in fact in the nature of a
G demurrer and could be decided as such-But the second objection could only
be _decided by adducing evidence-Hence, Commission directed to deal with
the second objection-Evidence.

Section 36-A-Unfair trade practice-Effect of-Compensation-
Jurisdiction to entertain-MRTP Commission held that it had jurisdiction if
H 3%
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG v.MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. 397
the effect ofthe unfair trade practice was felt in India-Correctness of-Held: A
Merely because the effect ofan unfair trade practice is felt in India, this would
not clothe the Commission with jurisdiction unless the 'effect' is itself an
'unfair trade practice' within India.

Contract Act, 1872:
B
Sections 23 and 28-Agreement-Parties entered into an agreement
that a particular Law would be applicable in the event of disputes-Validity
of-Held: Such an agreement was not contrary to public policy nor did it
contravene Ss. 23 and 28.

The appellant carried on its business of manufacturing printing C
machines in Germany and was incorporated under German Law.
Respondent No.I had its registered office in India. Pursuant to an
agreement the appellant sold a printing machine to respondent No.J. The
said machine was shipped by the appellant from Germany to India.

Respondent ~o.l filed an application before the MRTP Commission D
complaining of unfair trade practices relating to the supply of the printing
machine and claimed a certain amount as compensation.

The appellant had raised objections to the Commission's jurisdiction
to entertain the application for compensation. The first ground of objection E
was that the parties had agreed that the applicable law in the event of
any disputes would be German Law. The second ground was that the
appellant had neither provided any service nor carried on any trade or
trade practice in India for the purpose of the Act.

The Commission rejected both \he grounds. As far as the first ground F
was concerned, it held that the clause regarding the choice of forum was
contrary to Sections 23 and 28 of ·the Contract Act, 1872 and was void.
Hence the appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. When the parties have agreed on a particular forum, the
Courts will enforce such an agreement. This is not because of a lack or
ouster of its own jurisdiction by reason of consensual conferment of
jurisdiction on another Court, but because the Court will not be a party
to a breach of an agreement. Such an agreement is not contrary to public
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A policy nor does it contravene Section 23 or 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.
This principle is applicable to a situation where the Court is called upon
to enforce the rights arising under a contract, which contains a t
'
jurisdictional clause. However, this principle does not apply to the
proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive trade Practice Act, 1969
th.at provides for statutory remedies in respect of statutorily defined
B offences. The remedies available under the Act are additional to the usual
remedies available under the Contract Act to the parties. This is clear inter
alia from Sections 4(1) and 12-B(l) of the Act, both of which indicate that
the proceedings under the Act are additional to and, therefore, distinct
from the proceedings before a Civil Court. The powers invoked by the
C complainant under the Act are not exercisable otherwise than under the
Act and it is certainly not exercisable by the Courts in Germany. The
jurisdictional clause in the contract would, therefore, not apply to the
proceedings before the Commission. This is so even assuming that the
Commission is a "Court". [401-H; 402-A-E)

D Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR (1971) SC 740, A.B.C.
Laminar! Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, [1989) 2 SCC .163 and Modi
Entertainment Networkv. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt. Ltd, [2003) 4 SCC 341, relied
on.

Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Coporation of India Ltd, [1995) Supp.
E 3 SCC 81 and P. Sarathy v. State Bank ofIndia, [2000) 5 S~C 355, referred
to.

Rajendra Sethia v. Punjab National Bank, AIR(1991) Del. 285,
overruled.
F 2. The subject matter of complaint of an unfair trade practice must
be such that relief under Section 360 of the Act can be granted in respect
of it. As the Commission can grant relief only in respect of practices within
India, it necessarily follows that the practice complained of must taken
place in this country. [404-G-H)
G Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Association,
[2000) 6 sec 600, relied on.

3.1. An objection to jurisdiction can either be taken by way· of
demurrer or raised as an issue in the proceeding. In the first case the
H objection will have to be decided on the basis of the allegations contained
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG v.MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. [RUMA PAL, J.j 399

in the complaint, taking the statements contained therein to be correct A
Otherwise an objection to the jurisdiction of a Court may be raised as a
preliminary issue. In such an event, the issue would have to be adjudicated
upon after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The
Commission proceeded on the basis that the objections raised by the
appellant were by way of demurrer. (405-F-Gl
B
3.2. The appellant's first objection to the Commission's jurisdiction
based on. the clause in the agreement was in fact in the nature of a
demurrer and could be decided as such. But the second objection to the
jurisdiction of the Commission was not. It would have to be determined
on evidence. (405-H; 406-Al C
4. The Commission erred in law when it held that it would have
jurisdiction because the effect of the unfair trade practice would be in
India. Merely because the effect of an unfair trade practice is felt in India,
this would not clothe Commission with jurisdiction unless the 'effect' is
itself an 'unfair trade practice' within India. (407-E) D
Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Association,
[2000) 6 sec 600, relied on.

5. The MRTP Commission is directed to deal with the second aspect
of the preliminary objection on evidence, which may be adduced by either E
party. [408-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7244of1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.99 of the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in Compensation F
Application No. 383 of 1997.

Sunil Gupta, Ms. Mohan Lal and Rajiv Mehta for the -Appellant.

Arvind Minocha, Ravi Sharma, V.K. Rao, Satish Kumar and Ms. Madhu
Sikri for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RUMA PAL, J. The appellant has challenged the order of the
Commission set up under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Act, 1969 (referred to as the Act) by which the Commission held it had the H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [W04] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A jurisdidion to entertain the respondent's claim for compensation under Section
12 B of the Act against the appellant and the respondent No. 2.

The appellant carries on its business of manufacturing printing machines
in Germany. It was incorporated under German Law and has its registered
office at Offenbach, Main, Germany. The respondent No. l and the respondent
B NG. 2 have their registered offices at Mumbai.

Pursuant to the agreement a printing machine was sold to the respondent
No. l by the appellant. The machine was shipped by the appellant from
Germany to Mumbai on 16th June 1994. It was off-loaded at Mumbai on 5th
C August 1994 and cleared by the respondent No. l from the customs warehouse
on 22nd April 1997.

In November, 1997 the respondent No. l filed two applications before
the Commission viz. Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry (UTPE) No. 388 of
1997 in effect complaining of unfair trade practices by the appellant and the
D respondent No. 2 relating to the supply of the printing machine. Compensation
Application (CA) No. 383 of 1997 was filed claiming over Rs. 13 crores
towards the cost of the machine, customs duty paid by respondent No. l on
the machine interest on the cost and customs duty and damages. However,
UTPE No. 388 of 1997 was withdrawn in August 1999.

E The appellant had raised objections to the Commission's jurisdiction to
entertain the respondent's application for compensation. The first ground was
that the parties had agreed that the applicable law in the event of any dispute
would be German Law. It was also agreed that disputes between the parties
should be resolved either by proceedings brought in German Courts or
alternatively through arbitration conducted in accordance with the International
F Chamber of Commerce Rules. The second ground on which the jurisdiction
of the Commission was questioned by the appellant was that the appellant
neither provided any service nor carried on any trade or trade practice in
India for the purpose of the Act and even the machine in question had been
sold to the respondent No. l outside India.
G The Commission rejected both the submissions of the appellant. As far
as the first ground was concerned, it was held that the clause regarding the
choice of forum was contrary to Sections 28 and 23 of the Contract Act and
was void.

H The memorandum of understanding executed between the appellant
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG v.MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. [RUMA PAL, J.] 40 l

and the respondent No. l on 21st December 1993 contained a clause to the A
following effect:

"13. Arbitration:

As claims and disputes arising out of the Contract shall be settled
amicably between the parties as far as possible. But in case of failure B
all disputes arising in' connection with this Contract shall be finally
settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the
International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators
appointed in accordance with the Rules. The venue of such Arbitration
shall be Paris (France) and the proceedings shall be conducted in
English language." C
Pursuant to this memorandum, a fonnal offer was sent by the appellant
to respondent No. I on 24th January 1994 to sell the printing machine. This
was accepted by the respondent No. l's letter dated 2nd February 1994 to the
appellant. On the same date, the appellant acknowledged receipt of the order D
and the fact of sale of the machine subject to, inter-alia, the following
condition:

"XVI. Jurisdiction and Arbitration

1. The place of jurisdiction for all disputes arising out of the contract
- including actions on negotiable legal instruments and documents - E
shall be the place of the Works supplying t.he goods concerned i.e.
Augsburg or Offenbach MR may also bring an action at the place of
the Purchaser's registered office. ·

2. In the event arbitration proceedings being agreed with a Purchaser
having his registered office outside the Federal Republic of Gennany F
any disputes arising out of the contract or in respect of its validity or
to
the validity of the arbitration agreement shall be finally settled the
exclusion of legal proceedings under the Rules of Conciliation and
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris by a
court of arbitration composed of three arbitrators appointed under G
such Rules. As long as no recourse to arbitration has been made the
contracting parties shall be free to bring an action at the competent
court of law at the place of the defendant's party's registered office."

Undoubtedly when the parties have agreed on a particular forum, the
Courts will enforce such agreement. This is not because of a lack or ouster H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A of its own jurisdiction by reason of consensual .confennent of jurisdiction on
another Court, but because the Court will not be party to a breach of an
agreement. Such an agreement is not contrary to public policy nor does it
contravene Section 28 or Section 23 of the Contract Act. This has been held
in Hakkam Singh v. Mis. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR (1971) SC 740; A.B.C
B Lamim;irt Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, [1989) 2 SCC 163 and Modi Entertainment
Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., [2003) 4 SCC 341, 351. The decision
of the Delhi High Court in Rajendra Sethia v. Punjab National Bank, AIR
(I 991) Del. 285 relied on by the Commission which holds to the contrary is,
therefore, clearly em;meous.

C But although the Commission rejected the first submission- of the
appellant on an untenable ground, nevertheless the conclusion arrived at was
correct. The principle which we have outlined in the previous paragraph is
applicable to a situation where the Court is calle.d upon to enforce rights
arising under a contract which contains such a jurisdictional clause. The
principle does not apply .to proceedings under the Act which provides for
D statutory remedies in respect of statutorily defined offences. The remedies
available under the Act are additional to the usual remedies available under
the Contract Act to the parties. This is clear inter a/ia from Sections 4( I) and
12 B (I) of the Act, both of which indicate that the proceedings under the Act
are additional to, and therefore distinct from, proceedings before a Civil
E Court. The powers invoked by the complainant under the Act are not
exercisable otherwise than under the Act and it is certainly not exercisable by
Courts in Gennany. The jurisdictional clause in the contract would therefore
not apply to proceedings before the Commission. This is so even assuming
that the Commission is a "Court" as contended by the appellant on the basis
of Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., [1995) Supp 3
F SCC 81 and P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India, [2000) 5 SCC 355.

The question then arises whether the Commission can at all exercise
jurisdiction in respect of the complaint of unfair trade practice made by the
respondent No. I before it? An .'unfair trade practice" has been defined in
Section.36A as meaning "a trade practice which.for the purpose ofpromoting
G the sale, use or supply of any goods or the provision of any services, adopts
any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice" including any of the
practice specified in that section. The respondent has in its complaint relied
on the following provisions in Section 36B:.

(I) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing
H or by visible representation which, -
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACI-DNEN AG v.MULTICOLOUR OFFSETLTD. [RUMA PAL, J.] 403

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, A
quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or mode;
. (ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard,
quality or grade;
(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, re-
conditioned or old goods as new goods; B

(vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance,
efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that it is
not based on an adequate proper test ·thereof: C
Provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that
such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test,
the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising
such defence;
(viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to D
be-

(I) a'"warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or
services; or

(II) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part E
thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved
a specified result.

If such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially
misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such w:trranty,
guarantee or promise will be carried out;" F
In the case of an unfair trade practice as invoked by the respondent No.
l the object of inquiry is a statement which is a false representation of the
kind specified in clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (l) of Section 36A or
is an advertisement of the kind specified in clause (vii ) or (viii) thereof. The
statement or advertisement is the trade practice. The further requirement G
under the section is that the trade practice complained of must be for the
purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of goods or for promoting the
provision of any service. The sale, use or supply need not, for the purposes
of the section, actually have taken place although it may be relied upon by
the complainant to establish the falsity of the representation.
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A The unfair trade practices alleged to have been committed by the
appellant, according to the respondent No.I, were as follows :-

(a) Falsely representing that the machine in question was of a
particular standard and model whereas in fact the machine
supplied was a machine which was obsolete and out of production.
B (b) Representing that the old goods were new and passing off the
same as such to the respondent No. I.
(c) Giving guarantees and warranty in the purchase agreement
regarding the performance, installation and commissioning of
the machine but ensuring that the said clauses could not be
c invoked
(d) inspite of being obliged under the contract to repair the goods
insists on the payment of an additional sum of Two lakhs as
initial payment to the second respondent for carrying out repairs.

D (e) and inspite of making the said payment not carrying out of any
repairs.

The appellant's contention is that if the party alleged to have indulged
in unfair trade practice does not reside in India the practices complained of
must take place within India as the Act has no extra-territorial operation. As
E a proposition of law this is correct and follows from section 14 of the Act
which deals with "Orders where party concerned does not carry on business
in India" and says:

"Where any practice substantially falls within monopolistic, restrictive
or unfair, trade practice, relating to the production, storage, supply,
F distribution or control of goods of any description or the provision of
any services and any party to such practice does not carry on business
in India, an order may be made under this Act with respect to that
part of the practices which is carried on in India."

The subject matter of complaint of an unfair trade practice must be
G such that relief under Section 360 can be granted in respect of it. As the
Commission can grant relief only in respect of practices within India, it
necessarily follows that the practice complained of must have taken place in
this country. This has also been held in Haridas Exports v. All India Float
Glass Manufacturers Association and Ors., [2002] 6 SCC 600.
H
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG v. MULTICOLOUR OFFSETLTD. [RUMA PAL, J.] 405
The appellant has relied on Haridas Exports also to contend that if the A
sale or supply in respect of which complaint is made had taken place outside
India then the Commission would not have the jurisdiction to proceed with
the complaint. In that case the complaint alleged was a restrictive trade practice
and related to the sale and import of goods (float glass) into India at predatory
prices. It was found that the sale by the foreign manufacturers of the goods B
had taken place outside India. It was in that context that the Court held:

"If the float glass was ready and available, then being ascertained
goods the sale would be regarded as having taken place where the
goods existed at the time of sale i.e. in Indonesia. If the glass had to
be manufactured and was not readily identifiable, then the sale would C
take place outside India when the goods are appropriated to the contract
by the foreign exporter. Here the appropriation would take place in
Indonesia when the glass is earmarked and exported to India. In
either case, the MRTP Commission would have no jurisdiction to
stop that sale. If the said sale cannot be stopped and the import policy
permits the Indian exporter to import on payment of duty then we fail D
to see what jurisdiction the MRTP Commission can possibly have till
a restrictive trade practice takes place after the float glass is imported
into India."

In the present case, the respondent No. I has alleged that the appellant
and the respondent No.2 have made statements which were false because the E
appellant had not only sold, but also the respondent No.2 had failed to repair,
the machine which was not in keeping with such statements. We are not
required to decide on the correctness of these allegations in this appeal.

An objection to jurisdiction can either be taken by way of dem1.1rrer or
raised as an issue in the proceeding. In the first case the objection will have F
to be decided on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint,
taking the statements contained therein to be correct. Otherwise an objection
to the jurisdiction of a Court may be raised as a preliminary issue. In such
event, the issue would. have to be adjudicated upon after giving the parties
an opportunity to lead evidence. The Commission proceeded on the basis that G'
both the objections raised by the appellant, were by way of demurrer.

The appellant's first objection to the Commission's jurisdiction based
on the clause in the agreement was in fact in the nature of a demurrer and
could be decided as such. But in our opinion the second objection to the
jurisdiction of the Commission was not. It would have to be determined an H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A evidence.·
The Commission held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint because (I) the appellant carried on its trade practice of supply of
the printing machinery to the respondent No. I in India through the respondent
No2 who "admittedly" was its Indian Agent (2) the contract between the
B appellant and the respondent No. l was required to be performed in India and
(3) the supply of the printing machinery pursuant to the sale transaction was
within the definition of "trade practice" in Section 2(u) of the Act and the
effect of such trade practice "would certainly be on the Indian soil as the
printing machinery was to be supplied in India". The issue of passing of title
C was not gone into by the Commission, because the Commission felt it was
not necessary to be considered at that stage.

The Commission erred in holding that the respondent No. 2 was
'admittedly' the Indian Agent of the appellant in view· of the fact that the
assertion of the respondent No. I t& that effect has been specifically
D controverted in the counter affidavit of the appellant. But then it certainly is
not an issue which could be determined without taking evidence. The
Commission would have to enquire into the question whether the respondent ·
No.2 was in fact involved in the capacity of the appellant's agent as alleged
by the respondent No. I. If it is so found the appellant may be said to carry
on business in India thus giving the Commission the necessary jurisdiction to
E determine the respondent No; l's complaint.

Even if it be found that the respondent No.2 was not the agent of the
respondentNo.l, the question would still remain to be determined on eviden_ce
as to whether the alleged representations were made and if so, whether the
F representations were falsified by the actions of the appellant. In this case
there is also an allegation by the respondent No. I relating to the carrying out
of repairs to the machine. The appellant says that there was no obligation
tinder the contract to repair the goods because the warranty period in the
contract had expired long before the goods were cleared by the respondent
No. I and also because the goods had admittedly been damaged in the Customs
G Warehouse by fire. These are all questions of fact which require adjudication.
Having regard to the nature of the allegations noted in clauses (a) and (b) of
the complaint as noted earlier, the Commission's refusal to consider the
question of passing of title in the machine as unnecessary to the question of
jurisdiction was, particularly in the light of this Court's decision in Haridas
H Exports (supra), erroneous. According to the appellant, the sa,le was completed
/
MAN ROLAND DRUCKJMACHINEN AG v.MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. [RUMA PAL, J.] 407

in Gennany and the appellant was required to deliver the machine at Bombay A
Port C.l.F. It is contended that the property in the machine had passed from
the appellant to the respondent No. l before the goods were imported by the
respondent No. l. It is not necessary to consider these arguments as the
Commission has not addressed its mind to this aspect at all. It must do so.
The appellant has also contended that the machine had been inspected in
Gennany prior to its sale by the respondent No. 1. This again pertains to the B
defence of the appellant on merits. The contract dated 21st December, 1993
envisaged not only the supply of the machine by the appellant to the respondent
No. l, but also provided for the appellant No. 1 helping in the erection and
installation of the machine at the respondent No. l's site. According to the
appellant, the contract was signed by it "without any obligation". This would C
also have to be tried and detennined on evidence. The appellant has also
claimed that the portion of the contract providing for installation of the machine
had been subsequently deleted .and a proportionate part of the price paid by
the respondent No. l had been remitted to it. These are all matters to be
adjudicated upon.
D
But the Commission erred in law when it held that it would have
jurisdiction because the effect of the unfair trade practice would be in India.
Haridas Exports (supra) also dealt, inter-alia, with the contention that even
if the 'practice' took place outside India but the resultant adverse effect was
experienced in India, then the MRTP Commission had the jurisdiction to E
entertain the complaint.

This Court after considering the definition of "goods'', "trade", "trade
practice!' and Sections 14 and 33 came to the conclusion that the 'effect
doctrine' would apply provided that the 'effect' amounted to a restrictive
trade practice in India: F
"Even if an agreement is executed outside India or the parties to the
agreement are not in India and agreement may not be registrable
under Section 33, being an outside-India agreement, nevertheles:;, if
any, restrictive trade practice, as a consequence of any such outside.
agreement, is carried out in India then the Commission shall have G
jurisdiction under Section 37(1) in respect of that restrictive trade
practice if it comes to the conclusion that the same is prejudicial to
the public interest."

H!
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A "The counsel for the respondents is right in submitting that if the
effect of restrictive trade practices came to be felt in India because of
a part of the trade practice being implemented here the MRTP
Commission would have jurisdiction. This 'effect doctrine' will clothe
the MRTP Commission with jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order
even though a transaction, for example, which results in exporting
B goods to India at predatory price, which was in effect a restrictive
trade practice, had been carried out outside the territory of India if the
effect of that resulted in a restrictive trade practice in India."

Therefore, merely because the effect of an unfair trade practice is felt
C in India, this would not clothe the Commission with jurisdiction unless the
'effect' is itself an 'unfair trade practice' within India. This follows from the
reasoning in Hatidas Exports as well as the nature of the powers conferred
on the Commission under section 360 read with Section 14. The Commission,
therefore, erred in holding that it would have jurisdiction only because the
effect of the trade practice was felt in India.
D
We therefore, dispose of the appeal by directing the Commission to
deal with the second aspect of the preliminary objection on evidence which
may be adduced by either party and in the light of the legal issues determined
by us. It is clarified that in the event the Commission finds on the evidence
that the appellant does not carry on business in India through the respondent
E No.2 and that the alleged unfair trade practice did not take place in India, the
Commission will dismiss the respondent No.I's complaint without deciding
the matter on merits. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order
as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.