Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2003 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (4) TMI 432 - SC - Companies LawWhether there was a prima facie case against the respondent for institution of a regular inquiry under the provisions of the Act or not? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the case in hand, admittedly, after negotiations failed, the respondent had sold the flats at a lower price to others. It is, thus, clear that no undue advantage was sought to be extracted by respondent by dropping the matter, much less from the applicant. There is no allegation that the respondent had demanded or expected higher price from the complainant. It is also not the case of the complainant that the respondent created such a situation which could compel the complainant to purchase the flats from the respondents on respondent’s term to the detriment of the complainant. The applicant could also not compel the respondent to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on applicant’s own terms. The respondent could validly suggest a change in draft Memorandum of Understanding sent by the complainant and if on that point the negotiations broke and the transaction fell through the case would not fall within the ambit of section 2(o)(i ) or (ii) of the Act. Thus the view taken on the point by the Chairman commends approval. Also in absence of relevant and proper facts, mere use of words as used in the provision, would not be of any help and it would not constitute restrictive trade practice. In the present case as find that no such facts have been averred which may be said to have constituted restrictive trade practice on the part of the respondent.
|