PREM NATH MOTORS Vs. IND AUTO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint/petition has been made under Sections 36b (d), 10 (a) (iv) read with Sections 36a and 2 (o) (ii) and 37 of the MRTP Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in unfair and restrictive trade practices. An application under Sec.12a has also been filed seeking ex-parte injunction against invocation and encashment of the Bank guarantee furnished by the applicant/complainant in favour of the respondents.

(2.) It appears that the applicant/complainant was appointed as a dealer by the respondents for the sale of their car 'uno' and a dealership agreement was entered into between them on 2.2.1999 in terms of which the applicant/complainant was required to furnish a Bank guarantee of Rs.150 lakhs. It transpires from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the Bank guarantee was invoked by the respondents in order to recover the amounts which were collected by the applicant/complainant from the buyers of Uno cars but were not paid to the respondents. It has been further contended in the reply that the applicant/complainant defaulted in making the payments and the total outstanding amount due from the applicant/complainant totalled Rs.1,97,27,000/- and as a result, the dealership agreement was terminated and the Bank guarantee was invoked as per the terms of the dealership agreement. It has been further pointed out that according to Clause 17 of the dealership agreement, all disputes between the parties relating to this agreement are to be resolved and settled in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and pursuant thereto, arbitration proceedings have already been set in motion by the applicant/complainant and Mr. Justice S. C. Pratap, a retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court has also been nominated as an Arbitrator by the applicant/complainant. In view of the fact that a dispute has arisen between the parties over the invocation and revocation of the Bank guarantee and an alternative remedy of arbitration is available as envisaged in Clause 17 of the dealership agreement and is being availed of by the applicant/complainant, there are no grounds to entertain the present complaint/petition and the interim relief application which are accordingly dismissed. This Commission has taken this view in C. W. No.65/2001/ia No.54/2001, Village Cable Network V/s. Hathway Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , and the Commission's order of 8th June, 2001 was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Civil Appeal No.6341 of 2001 preferred by Village Cable Network was dismissed.

(3.) In view of the above, we do not propose to go into the merits of the complaint. The complaint/petition and the interim relief application are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.