TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugust 23, 1989, could not have related to advertisements pertaining to real estate. Besides the advertisement in question was made much prior to the amendment. Therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Commission without any order as to costs. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1993 OF 1997 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2004 - MRS. RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ. Sanjay Parekh and M.L. Sachdev for the Appellant. T.L.V. Iyer and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The subject matter of this appeal is an order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission holding that the appellant had violated the Commission s earlier order dated August 23, 1989, and directing the prosecution of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issued any advertisement thereafter and therefore did not wish to contest the enquiry. However, on the assumption that the impugned advertisement as mentioned in the notice of enquiry amounted to an unfair trade practice, the appellant undertook that he would not give any such advertisement in future. 4. On this basis an order was passed by the Commission on August 23, 1989, which we quote verbatim wherein the appellant is referred to as the respondent: "We have perused the FIR and supplementary FIR, the notice of enquiry and since the respondent is not willing to contest the allegation made against him in the notice of enquiry on the basis of the statement of the respondent s counsel at Bar we hereby pass an order under section 36D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that despite the fact that second advertisement pertained to real estate, the earlier order prohibited the appellant from issuing any advertisement in connection with such trade or business. It was found that the appellant therefore violated the order. Accordingly the prosecution was launched under section 36A of the Act. 7. The appellant has questioned the order of the Commission on the ground that no enquiry was held prior to the Commission coming to the conclusion that the appellant had violated the order dated August 23, 1989, and that it was incumbent on the Commission to do so under section 13A of the Act. It is also contended that in fact there was no violation of the order dated August 23, 1989. It is pointed out that real esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that the appellant was guilty of violating its order dated August 23, 1989, the Commission should have directed an investigation to be carried out under section 13A by the Director General in the circumstances of the case and based its reasoning on the report of the Director General. 11. The finding of the Commission that the practice forbidden by the earlier order dated August 23, 1989, also covered the housing scheme as advertised by the appellant is erroneous for the additional reason that service in connection with real estate was brought within the parameters of the Act only by an amendment of the definition of services in section 2( r ) with effect from September 27, 1991. Therefore the order dated August 23, 1989, could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
