SAROJ SADANAND NARWEKAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the relief sought in these two cases is different, the cause of action and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the cause of action are identical. They will, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In the first instance, the complainant filed a complaint charging the respondent with the adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices. A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) under Sec.10 (a) (i) read with Sec.37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for short), was accordingly issued. The respondent filed a reply thereto. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the respondent has indulged in or is indulging in restrictive trade practices listed in the NOE (ii) Whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest (iii) Relief.

(3.) While the complaint proceedings were in progress, the complainant also moved an application claiming compensation under Sec.12b of the MRTP Act. On this application too, a notice was issued to the respondent and after the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the respondent has been indulging in restrictive and unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application (ii) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of these alleged restrictive and unfair trade practices (iii) Relief, if any.