Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Bank of India

THE case is taken up in the revised list. Representative of the applicant Company, Shri Vijay Kumar informs us that the Advocate engaged on behalf of the petitioner is busy in the High Court and, therefore, he prays to adjourn the case for some time. Again, we have taken up this case at 12.10 p.m. but the Advocate for the petitioner is not present.

HOWEVER, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the case as set out by the petitioner is fully covered under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the MRTP Act, 1969 and as such the Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Learned Counsel refers to the case decided by this Commission on 20.8.1999 in the case of Central Bank of India, Lucknow reported in 1999 CTJ 343 (MRTP) and submits that the view as taken by this Court is that since the relief as sought for by the petitioner is available under Section 6 of the B.R. Act, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. As the cause of action in this petition has already been taken care of and decided by this Commission in the case of Central Bank of India, Lucknow, in our opinion, the petition as framed and filed is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is advised to approach the concerned Authorities for redressal of his grievances, if any. In view of the foregoing, the Notice of Enquiry is discharged and the compensation application also stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. C.A. disposed of.