STATE Vs. JAINA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of two enquiries bearing UTPE No.177/89 and RTPE No.143/89 against M/s. Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.1) and M/s. Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2) based on the common preliminary investigation report (PIR) submitted by me Director General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as DC ). The Commission initially received a complaint under Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act) from the Jaina Towers Association, B-1/490, Janakpuri, New Delhi alleging certain prohibited trade practices under the Act indulged in by the respondents. The Commission in terms of Sec.36-C of the Act referred the matter for submitting the PIR by the DG. After submission of the PIR by the DG wherein it has been recommended that the respondents are indulging in both restrictive trade practices under Sec.2 (o) (ii) and unfair trade practices under Sec.36a (1) (ii) (iv) and (vi) of the Act and recommended for issuance of Notice of Enquiry relating to both restrictive and unfair trade practices.

(2.) On the recommendation of the DC, two separate notices of enquiry were issued against the respondents, one under Sec.36b (d) read with Sec.36a (1) (ii) (iv) and (vi) and other relating to restrictive trade practices under Sec.2 (o) (ii) of the Act. The respondents filed their respective replies and taken certain preliminary objections besides filing the reply on merits. No rejoinder was filed by the DC and on 14.12.1990 the following issues were framed : utpe No.177/89 1. Whether the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the enquiry, the light of the preliminary objections taken in the reply to the Notice of Enquiry 2. Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as mentioned in the Notice of Enquiry

(3.) If answer to Issue No.2 is in the affirmative whether the said unfair trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest, interest of the consumer and the consumers in general