Ritesh Narendra Bhansali-Roll no-5-MFM-Unfair Trade practices destroy corporate goodwill

8/7/2019 Ritesh Narendra Bhansali-Roll no-5-MFM-Unfair Trade practices destroy corporate goodwill

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ritesh-narendra-bhansali-roll-no-5-mfm-unfair-trade-practices-destroy-corporate 1/37

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES DESTROY CORPORATE GOODWILL

INDEX

TOPIC PAGE NO

CERTIFICATE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS3

PROLOGUE 4

INTRODUCTION TO UNFAIR

TRADE PRACTICES

5

CASE LAW INDEX- 1 9

PRIME TIME MATTER- 1 10

CASE LAW INDEX- 2 22

PRIME TIME MATTER- 2 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY 34

EPILOGUE 35

CROSS REFERENCE INDEX 36

1




CERTIFICATE

I, Nadirshaw K. Dhondy, Advocate Supreme Court, have

examined the thesis of (Ritesh.N.Bhansali), who is enrolled in

Lala Lajpatrai Institute of Management at unique Roll No. 5 for

the academic year 2008 – 2011 in the course content -(Unfair

Trade Practices Destroy Corporate Goodwill)

He has taken this thesis in part fulfillment of final exams

evaluation.

He has been rated to receive …………………… marks out of 40

[Forty].

Signature of the candidate Signature

Ritesh.N.Bhansali Nadirshaw K Dhondy Advocate Supreme Court

2




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to

Hemant.Shinde, Bhambhani Sunny, Keni Sonia for their support and

encouragement that has made the completion of this Project possible.

I would also like to thank the library staff of Lala Lajpatrai Institute of

Management for the use of their collections without which this thesis would

have been most difficult.

Finally, I would like to thank my advisor for providing with guidance and

support that made me complete this thesis efficiently.

3




PROLOGUE

This Thesis traces the evolution of law and practices in the past 20 years

focusing on one aspect of unfair trade practices -- unfairness in holding of

games, contests, lotteries, and similar schemes for promoting sales and

services in the context of India transitioning from a state controlled to a

liberalized economy.

With competition in the economy, firms have got into aggressive and

competitive trade practices to entice the customers. These practices raisequestions about the truthfulness and fairness of representation of products,

services, advertisements, and schemes and modalities for promotion of

products and services.

There is a need for adequate law against unfair trade practices and a justice

delivery system to have some 'rules of the game' to compete among

themselves.

The thesis deals with two case laws referring to unfair trade practices with adetailed explanation about the case laws including actions, justifications and

judgments of the commission.

4




Introduction to Unfair Trade Practice

DEFINITION OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE.

In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires "unfair trade practice"

means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or

supply of any goods or for the provisions of any services, adopts any unfair

method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following

practices, namely: -

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by

visible representation which, -

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality,

quantity, grade, composition, style or model;

(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or

grade;

(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or

old goods as new goods;

(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorships, approval,

performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods

or services do not have;

(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or

affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;

(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or

the usefulness of, any goods or services;

(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 is not based on an

adequate or proper test thereof :

Provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or

5




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 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 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 warranty, guarantee or promise

will be carried out;

(ix) materially misleading the public concerning the price at which a product

or like products or goods or services, have been, or are, ordinarily sold or

provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed

to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have

been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market

unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been

sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose

behalf the representation is made;

(x) gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of

another person.

Explanation: For the purposes of clause (1), a statement that is -

(a) expressed on an article offered or displayed for sale, or on its wrapper or

container; or

(b) expressed on anything attached to, inserted in, or accompanying, anarticle offered or displayed for sale, or on anything on which the article is

mounted for display or sale; or

(c) contained in or on anything that is sold, sent, delivered, transmitted or in

any other manner whatsoever made available to a member of the public,

6




shall be deemed to be a statement made to the public by, and only by, the

person who had caused the statement to be so expressed, made or contained;

(2) permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any newspaper

or otherwise, for the sale or supply at a bargain price, of goods or services

that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or

for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to

the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and

size of business, and the nature of the advertisement.

Explanation: For the purpose of clause (2), "bargain price" means -

(a) a price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by

reference to an ordinary price or otherwise, or

(b) a price that a person who reads, hears, or sees the advertisement, would

reasonably understand to be a bargain price having regard to the prices at

which the product advertised or like products are ordinarily sold;

(3) permits -

(a) the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of notproviding them as offered or creating the impression that something is being

given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the

amount charged in the transaction as a whole.

(b) the conduct of any contest, lottery, game of chance or skill, for the

purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use or supply of any

product or any business interest;

(4) permits the sale or supply of goods intended to be used, or are of a kindlikely to be used by consumers, knowing or having reason to believe that the

goods do not comply with the standards prescribed by competent authority

relating to performance, composition, contents, design, constructions,

finishing or packaging as are necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of

7




injury to the person using the goods;

(5) permits the hoarding or destruction of goods, or refuses to sell the goods

or to make them available for sale, or to provide any service, if such

hoarding or destruction or refusal raises or tends to raise or is intended to

raise, the cost of those or other similar goods or services.

8




CASE LAW INDEX

2008 CTJ 211 (MRTP)

MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

COMMISION, NEW DELHI

BERRY INSULATING TAPE COMPANY

VERSUS

R.P COATING PVT LTD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE O.P DWIVEDI,

CHAIRMAN;MR. M.M.K SARDANA, MEMBER.

COMPENSATION APPLICATION NO.317 OF 2000

8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008

9




PRIME TIME MATTER

Compensation-P.V.C Coating plant-MRTP Act,

1969-Section 12B-Unfair trade practice-Applicant purchased coating machine from the respondent and paid

Rs731200-On making recalculation, the applicant discovered that it had paid

Rs25000 in excess –Applicant also alleged that some accessories costing

Rs8500 not supplied-Held, by withholding the amount of Rs25000 and not

supplying the accessories tantamounted to unfair trade practice- Respondent

directed to refund R33000 with 12% interest to the applicant.

FACTS

The applicant had claimed compensation of Rs525000 from the respondenton the ground that they had indulged in unfair trade practice.

HELD

The respondent is directed to refund Rs33000 to the applicant along with

12% interest per annum.

COUNSEL

Mr. Thomas Joseph, Advocate for the respondent.

Making supply of a machine without its accessories would amount to an

unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the MRTP Act as the

machine cannot be put into operation. Similarly charging excess amount

towards its cost and not refunding the same also amounts to indulgence

in unfair trade practice.

10




ORDER

M.R M.M.K Sardana, Member-

This order is to dispose of an application dated 27th October, 2000 filed by

the applicant under Section 12B and 36A of the Monopolies and

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Act (hereinafter referredto as MRTP Act) alleging unfair trade practices against the

respondent and hereby seeking compensation of Rs25000 alleged

to have been paid in excess and Rs5lakhs as compensation for

supplying a deficient machine. Further an interest of 24% per

annum on the above amounts has been prayed for.

1. The facts as stated by the applicant, in brief are that in July 1996, the

applicant wanted to procure a P.V.C Coating Plant to procure P.V.C.

Electrical Tape and was also desirous of obtaining consultancy and

services related thereto. Respondent, claiming an international

collaboration, offered to sell the plant which would consist of:

i. Double Coating

ii. Drying Chambers

iii. Automatic Winders

iv. Two number slicing machines

2. Besides, the respondent offered to provide consultancy and relatedservices. A number of meetings followed between the applicant and

the respondent company. Respondent through its communication

dated 4th November 1996 conveyed its quotations, terms and

conditions, proforma invoice and detailed specifications etc. The price

quoted for the entire deal was kept at Rs6lakhs Payment terms in the

letter as quoted by the respondent were as follows:

“30% to be paid at the time of placing the order and one lakh was to

be paid on trial. Delivery was to be completed within a period of four

months from the date of letter of intent. Further respondent were to

provide technical know-how/consultancy towards coating

formulations, layout planning and other engineering free of cost. The

price quoted was exclusive of sales tax and excise etc. Warranty

period was six months after the date of commissioning.

11




3. Applicant paid in advance of Rs2.25lakhs to the respondent as

follows:

Date Amount (in Rs.)

13.11.1996 - 100000/-

07.12.1996 - 50000/-

24.04.1997 - 50000/-

01.05.1998 - 25000/-

Further amounts were paid at the time of delivery of the machine andthereabout as follows:

10.06.1998 - 481500/-(through Oriental Bank

of Commerce)

27.08.1998 - 24700/-

Thus, a total sum of Rs 731200/- was paid to the respondent on the

different dates mentioned above. The amount paid, as above, would

include sales tax and excise duty also.

4. Respondent signed an undertaking dated 10th June, 1999 to the

following effect:

The coating machine would be complete in all respects. It would be

fitted with all necessary rollers and electrical accessories so as to do

coating to make the following products:

i. BOPP Packing tapeii. P.V.C Electrical tape

iii. Paper to paper or paper to film coating.

5. Before the delivery of the coating machine, respondent advised the

applicant to obtain one Duplex Slitting machine 32” working width

complete accessories for slitting and rewinding to suit its requirements

12




of producing the required products. The price of the same was quoted

at Rs60000/- plus sales tax and excise duty.

6. For procuring the coating machine and Duplex Slitting Machine, the

total cost according to the applicant should have been Rs706200/-against the total payment made up to the respondent which was Rs

731200/-. Therefore, a surplus amount of Rs 25000/- got lodged with

the respondent which the respondent have avoided refunding the same

despite many requests.

7. It has also been stated that the respondent did not supply to the

applicant necessary accessories along with the machine to enable the

applicant to utilize the machine for manufacturing P.V.C. Insulating

Tape.

8. The machine was supplied to the applicant on 3rdJuly, 1998 at the

applicant’s premises in New Delhi. The said machine was installed in

a couple of days after which the coating machine was put to rest by

the respondent for coating only BOPP film (packing tape). The output

was noticed far from satisfactory. The coating machine was neither

suitable for P.V.C. coating (Electrical Tape) nor for BOPP packing

type. Adhesive coating on BOPP film was found with uneven coating

and that too at a very low speed. The resultant unevenly quoted

product was non-competitive from cost price as well as on qualityparameters. The machine was found incapable of producing P.V.C.

Electrical Tape in the absence of accessories that were required to be

supplied by the respondent. The conveyor system and four numbers of

turrets with winder station surface with chilled roller were not

supplied. Respondent thus, deliberately kept away from the supply of

ancillary equipment and deliberately providing a machine that was not

conducive to producing the products in terms of their proforma

invoice and also their undertaking. According to the applicant,

respondent have indulged in unfair trade practices by supplying it sub-standard machine and not upto the specifications and denying him the

necessary accessories. Therefore the applicant has claimed

compensation as prayed for.

9. Respondent has denied the allegation of unfair trade practices brought

on it by the applicant. Its reply, in brief, is as follows:

13




The applicant desired to purchase the machine in 1996 and

settled the terms and conditions for supply. The following were

the terms and conditions agreed between the parties:

a. 30% payment to be made at the time of placing the orders:b. One lakh was to be paid within four weeks of placing the order

10. Delivery was to be made within four months from the date of

receiving the advance payment. The price was Rs 6 lakhs plus sales

tax and excise duty. The applicant paid postdated cheques for

Rs100000/- dated 13th November 1996 and Rs 50000/- dated 7th

September 1996 i.e. for 25% payment only instead of 30%. The

respondent relied on the assurance that the applicant would make thepayment of balance 5% and Rs 100000 payable after four weeks

together, the respondent took up the manufacture of the machine on

receipt of 25% advance. It completed whole of the plant and was

ready for trial in March 1997. But the applicant neither paid the

balance advance amount of 5% nor Rs 100000 which were payable

within four weeks of placing the order and expressed its difficulty in

lifting the machine as they were negotiating a loan with their bankers.

The finished plant thus remained idle lying in the premises of the

respondent and the applicant assured orally to he respondent that they

would be compensated in this regard by paying interest on the amountinvested by them. But the applicant could not arrange the fund for

supply of the machinery for more than a year and though in between

the applicant paid Rs 50000/- by a cheque on 24th April 1997 and

further Rs 25000/-on 1st May 1998. Thus, a sum of Rs 2.25 lakhs was

received upto 1stMay, 1998 against the proforma invoice of November

1996. The applicant was making promises to pay the balance amount,

though not fulfilling the same.

11.In April 1998, applicant desired of the respondent to give an

acknowledgement to the fact of respondent having received an

advance of Rs 2 lakhs so that the applicant could justify its bankers to

enable it to borrow the remaining money from its bank. It was assured

by the applicant that the 3entire amount available from the bank

would be paid to the respondent and the account could be settled

14




between the applicant and the respondent which would also include

the interest payable by the applicant to the respondent for keeping the

machine with the respondent idle for so long. Respondent did receive

a payment of Rs 482500/- and Rs 24700/- towards the machine from

the bankers of the applicant. Thus, a total amount of Rs 731200/- wasreceived against the total dues of Rs 796200/- leaving balance of Rs

65000 to be recovered from the applicant. Respondent calculated the

amount of Rs 796200 payable to it taking into account the interest

liabilities @18% per annum on the applicant for keeping the machine

idle which was ready from March 1997. Thus, the allegation that the

applicant has paid an excess amount of Rs 25000/- according to the

respondent is baseless.

12.The very fact that the applicant did not make any request for refund of

so called excess payment made by it for more than a year would

establish, according to the respondent, that the applicant knew that the

excess amount paid by it would not be available to it because of

interest liabilities it had incurred for keeping the machine idle.

Further, no complaint was made by the applicant regarding mal-

functioning of the machine upto late 1999 and thus the entire

complaint is motivated and false. Therefore respondent has sought

dismissal of the complaint.

13.Applicant filed its rejoinder to the reply made by the respondent

reiterating its allegations as brought out on its complaint. Following

issues were framed:

a. Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair

trade practices alleged in the Compensation

application?

b. Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damageas a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices?

c. Relief, if any.

15




14.Applicant filed affidavits of evidence of three of its witnesses who

were duly cross-examined by the respondent. Respondent also filed

affidavits of evidence of two of its witnesses who were cross-

examined by the applicant.

15.Issues framed are inter-connected and are being dealt together.

16.Facts of the case as stated by respective parties have been summarized

in the earlier paragraphs. In the paragraph below, we will assess the

evidence tendered by the respective parties.

17. Affidavits of evidence which have been filed by the applicant are all

partners of the applicant’s firm and one of the partners i.e. Shri Anil

Sethi is an engineer. He deposed on 2

nd

December 2002 and has statedin his statement that the business of the applicant started after the

installation of the machine in July 1998. The witness confirms that the

respondent had demonstrated the production of BOPP tape at the time

of installation and states that it did not demonstrate the manufacturing

P.V.C. tapes. It further states that no letter was written to the

respondent prior to 1999 about the lack of facility of manufacturing

P.V.C. tapes. Questions were asked of this witness about the

production figure and the sourcing of raw material, the witness denied

any knowledge about the accounts of the applicant’s firm.

18. Shri S.C. Singhal also tendered his evidence on 2nd December, 2002.

He admits that the machine was installed in July 1998 and the

production started in September 1998 of BOPP films and it could

manufacture 1-2 tons of BOPP film in two and a half months. He also

states that the machine had ceased functioning for the past six months

only. He makes a statement that the machine had to be stopped

because the goods manufactured with it were not found to be upto the

required standard by the buyers and the applicant were making loses.However, he could not produce complaint of any of the customers in

writing. He would not state as to how many rolls were sold by the

applicant during the year 1998-99 and 2000-01. He admitted that they

were not maintaining any accounts of salaries, wages being paid to

workers. The witness admits an invoice at Exhibit-AW 1/9 about the

supply of the machine but does not confirm that it was in running

16




d) The machine was installed and demonstrated to be

capable of producing all the products intended by

the applicant.

e) The machine definitely was in operation atleast

upto June 2002.

f) No complaint about the machine was lodge within

warranty period.

g) There was an excess payment of Rs 25000/- by theapplicant over the basic price. Respondent has

sought it to be adjusted against the interest

liabilities accruing to the applicant for the period

the machine kept ready and idle at the premises of

the respondent since 1997. However, respondent

has not been able to place any documentary

evidence or otherwise to prove that such a liability

would accrue upon the applicant. In such a

situation excess payment of Rs 25000/- stood

withheld by the respondent. Respondent has notplaced on record any communication which it

might have sent to the applicant advising him that

it was appropriating Rs 25000/- towards the so

called interest liability calculated by the

respondent on account of the machine lying idle.

h) Certain equipments which were part of the invoice

dated 4

th

November 1999 and the cost of thesewere included in the final price quoted in that

invoice were not supplied by the respondent to the

applicant. If these items were not necessary as the

applicant had limited its requirements, respondent

should have excluded costs involved for these

items from the price quoted in the final invoice.

19




CASE LAW INDEX

2008 CTJ 201 (SUPREME COURT) (MRTP)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

V.N BHARAT VERSUS

D.D.A

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR;

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1373 OF 2006

2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008

22




PRIME TIME MATTER

Real estate – Unfair trade practice – MRTP Act, 1969 – Section 36A –

Appellant applied to respondent – DDA to register a semi – finished flat for

him on payment of Rs. 10,000 – Allotment made to him and letter to that

effect issued by DDA – Four installments duly paid – Problem arose inconnection with the payment of the fifty and final installment – DDA had to

issue a fresh demand letter which could have included a possible escalation

towards the cost of the flat – Payment of the fifty – payment of the fifth and

final installment not made since such a notice or letter not received by the

appellant – He became aware of the demand of Rs. 1,63,512/- only after

being served with a show – cause notice – Amount of Rs. 1,63,512/-

deposited – Termination of the appellant’s allotment by DDA – Appellant

informed that he was required to pay Rs. 4,43,336/- towards the fresh

allotment of the flat to him – A complaint filed by him before the MRTPCommission alleging unfair trade practice by the DDA – Commission held

that it was for the appellant to prove that the demand notice issued to hem by

DDA was not served on him – Complaint dismissed – Appeal by the

appellant to the Supreme Court – Except for the statutory presumption under

Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act that the demand notice had been

duly served on the appellant, there was no other material suggesting that the

notice had actually been received by the appellant – Assertion of service of

notice on such presumption clearly denied by the appellant – Assertion of

service of notice on such presumption clearly denied by the appellant –

Held, as a result the onus of service shifted back to the respondent – Noother evidence led by DDA in support of the presumption – Held, in the

circumstances such service not proved effected – Resultantly held, the

earlier allotment continued as no cancellation and / or termination had taken

place in terms of the scheme – Appeal allowed – MRTP Commission order

set aside – Respondents directed to accept the amount of Rs. 1,63,512/-

23




together with interest in full and final settlement of their dues and hand over

the flat to the appellant.

FACTS

The appellant had felt aggrieved by the order passed by the MRTP

Commission rejecting his complaint against the respondents.

COUNSEL

Mr. R. Srivastava Sr. Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent – DDA.

If an allotted of a flat denies to have received a demand notice issued to

hem by the Housing Authority, the onus is on the Housing Authority to

prove that it was duly served on hem. The allotted cannot be expected to

prove that he had not received it.

JUDGMENT

01) Alitasmas Kabir, J. The appellant applied for registration in respect

of a Category – II flat under the 1985 Sixth Self – Financing Housing

Registration Scheme, advertised by the Delhi Development Authority

(hereinafter referred to as the “DDA”). As per the scheme, the flats to be

constructed on a multistoried basis were expected to be ready within a

period of two years. In clause 10 of the Scheme, the method of payment has

been provided for as follows: -

“After a person has been allotted a flat he/she would be called upon tomake the payments as per the following schedule:

25% (including the amount paid as registration the amount paid as

registration deposit) as initial deposit on allotment / allocation. 20% after six

month

25% after next six month 20% after next six months

24




submitted that the question of fresh allotment did not arise having regard to

the fact that even in the show – cause notice dated 10th September, 1997, it

had been indicated that cause should be shown as to why the allotment

should not be cancelled for breach of the terms and conditions of such

allegations. In the show – cause notice it was also mentioned that in case thereply was not to the satisfaction of the DDA, the allotment would be

cancelled and the amount of penalty and interest charges would be adjusted

against the deposit made by the appellant and the balance money would be

refunded to him. Mr. Srivastava pointed out that without termination of the

appellant’s allotment of 22nd April. 1997, the DDA wrote to the appellant as

follows: -

“DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY”

F.177(691)/91/ssfs/11/43

22.4.1998

From:

P.L. Arora,

Accounts Officer, SFS – 1,

D – Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan.

To

Sh. Vishwanath Bharat,

H. No. 539. Gali no. 5-A

Gibind Puri (Kalkaji), New Delhi – 19

Sub: For issue of the 5th & final demand letter

Please refer to your letter dated 9.2. 1998 and subsequent

letter dated 12.2. 1998 on the subject cited above. In this connectionit is informed that 5th and final demand letter was issued to you vide

this office letter dated 11.9.1996 through Regd. Post RL 2911 which

has not been returned undelivered to this office so far.

However the matter for issue of another demand letter is in

process and will be issued in due course.

28




for the fifty and final installment indicating he number of the flat allotted the

amount payable, documents to be furnished and formalities to be completed

for taking over possession would be sent by registered post with

acknowledgment due to the allotted at the address on record with the DDA

within one month from the date of the draw for allotment of a specific fixnumber. Mr. Tripathy laid stress on the condition that failure to furnish all

the requisite documents within a period of120 days from the date of issue of

the demand letter for the fifty and final installment would result in

automatic cancellation of the allotment.

15) Mr. Tripathy contended that having remained silent despite having

received the demand notice as also the show – cause notice, which led to the

termination of the appellant’s allotment, the appellant waited for 2 yearsbefore making payment of the purported balance when, in fact, the amount

had to be calculated on the basis that the restoration was, in fact, a fresh

allotment.

16) Mr. Tripathy urged that since the notice of demand in respect of fifty

and final installment had been duly sent to the appellant by him, there would

be a statutory presumption under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act that the

demand notice had been duly served on the appellant: Ms. Tripathy urged

that the Commission rightly dealt with the matter and no ground had beenmade out on behalf of the appellant for interference with the same.

17) As will be evident from what has been mentioned hereinbefore, the

real controversy in this appeal appears to be whether the demand letter dated

10th September, 1996, for payment for the fifty and final installment had, in

fact, been received by the appellant and as to whether non – compliance with

the same resulted in termination of the appellant’s allotment and whether the

restoration of such allotment on a representation made by the appellantwould amount to a fresh of new allotment.

18) As submitted by Mr. Tripathy, except for the statutory presumption

under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act, there is no other material to

suggest that the demand notice had actually been received by the appellant.

31




as indicated by Mr. Tripathy, namely, automatic termination and fresh

allotment, cannot follow. In any event, in our view, eh restoration of the

allotment did not amount to a fresh allotment on the basis of which the fresh

demand notice could have been issued.

22) Having regard to what has been stated hereinabove, in our view the

MRTP Commission erred in law in shifting the onus of proof of service of

the demand notice on the appellant and in discharging the notice of inquiry

and vacating the interim order issued under Section 12 – A of the M.R.T.P.

Act. The allegation of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent

authority stands established. The decision of the Commission is, therefore,

liable to be set aside.

23) The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the MRTP

Commission impugned in this appeal is set aside. The respondents are

directed to accept the sum of Rs. 1,63,523/-, which had been deposited by

the appellant prior to receipt of the demand notice, together with interest, if

any, accrued thereupon, in full and final settlement of their dues in respect of

the flat allotted to the appellant and to hand over possession thereof to the

appellant within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

24) Having regard to the facts of the case, the parties will bear their own

costs.

33




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source

CTJ-Consumer Protection and Trade Practices Journal

16th Edition-October 2008Law Library Bibliography Collection

Secondary Sources

Site- www.vakilno1.com

- www.helplinelaw.com

Other Sources

Book-Business Laws One Should Know-Nabhi Publication

2008 Edition

Pg-221 to Pg –226

34

http://www.vakilno1.com/


http://www.helplinelaw.com/


http://www.helplinelaw.com/




Thank You.Thank You.

Ritesh Narendra Bhansali-Roll no-5-MFM-Unfair Trade practices destroy corporate goodwill

Documents

Transcript of Ritesh Narendra Bhansali-Roll no-5-MFM-Unfair Trade practices destroy corporate goodwill