MILL STORES SYNDICATE Vs. SATRAJ PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Advocates for the applicant as well as the respondent. The reply filed on behalf of the respondent to the applicant's compensation application contained a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present proceeding. The respondent has relied on certain orders of this Commission, by virtue of which, it has been held that the termination of an agreement and non-supply of goods, is not tantamount to a restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Sec.33 1 (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

(2.) The applicant, in his present compensation application, particularly in prayer Clause (A), has claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss caused by the respondent by its monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices. The respondent is stated to be a manufacturer of fan and V-belts. As the respondent is one of the dozens of manufacturers and suppliers of these products, it cannot be said to be having a monopoly in the manufacture, sale and marketing of fan and V-belts. In fact, there are a large number of manufacturers and traders who are dealing in these products. The learned Advocate for the applicant concedes that no monopolistic or restrictive trade practice by and on behalf of the respondent is involved in the present proceeding and the applicant's case revolves around unfair trade practices. The unfair trade practices adopted by and indulged in by the respondent, and mentioned by him, are with regard to the quality of these products, manufactured and supplied by the respondent, to the applicant, and the debit notes issued by the applicant, on account of the discount, which had to be allowed to the actual buyers of these products because of their inferior quality. His contention that, because of rejection of some of the supplies, and the discounts offered by the applicant as a result thereof, and the refusal of the respondent to reimburse the same, appears to us to be a dispute, with regard to payments, between the parties. It has been urged before us that disputes of civil nature are to be resolved in a Civil Court and appropriate Forum for settlement of such disputes is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The present compensation application, for the aforesaid reasons, therefore, is not maintainable, and is hereby rejected.