AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE applicant has moved an application for contempt under Section 13B read with Section 12A(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) read with Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dealing with the respondents in accordance with law for not complying with the order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997. THE respondents have filed their reply and have resisted this application on various grounds.
IT is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to the present application. IT may be sufficient to mention at this stage that the applicant has approached this Commission under Section 10(a)(i) and under Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive and unfair trade practices qua inviting tenders for supplying certain articles required by respondent No. 1 from time to time. By an order passed by this Commission on 1st April, 1997, this Commission restrained the respondents from finalising and/or awarding the contract of tender bearing No. TE-1. IT appears that later on, by an order passed on 1st August, 1997, this Commission directed respondent No. 1 to take into consideration the appellant''s tender alongwith the tenders of other parties and to take a decision according to its rules and regulations. IT appears that the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997. Thereupon, the applicant/complainant has moved the present application for contempt some time on 22nd September, 1997. The respondents have filed their reply to the contempt application and have resisted this application on various grounds. They have inter alia contended that they have made no wilful breach of the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997. They have explained the circumstances under which the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997 could not be complied with soon thereafter. They have stated in their reply that the matter was carried in Writ Petition before the High Court of Delhi questioning the correctness of the order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997 and it came to be disposed of as withdrawn by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 6th August, 1998. It has also been stated in the reply that thereafter the tender of the applicant was examined and the decision was taken to give orders even to the applicant. Apropos the necessary orders for supply of certain articles were placed with the applicant some time in March, 1999. The respondents have, therefore, contended that, on the facts and in the circumstances narrated in the reply, the respondents could not be said to be guilty of wilful breach of the order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997. They have tendered their apology if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997 has been made breach of by and on behalf of the respondents.
It cannot be gainsaid that the respondents were justified in approaching the High Court of Delhi some time in December, 1997 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997. It is true that the High Court of Delhi was moved only after the contempt application was filed in this Commission. We cannot overlook the fact that respondent No. 1 is a statutory authority and it has to act according to its own procedural rules and regulations in questioning the correctness of any order passed by this Commission or any other Authority amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the time taken in approaching the High Court in December, 1997 could be said to be deliberate delay on the part of the respondents.
IT may be noted in fairness to the respondents that the respondents have not contested the Writ Petition on merits and they withdrew the Writ Petition on 6th August, 1998. By the aforesaid order passed on 1st August, 1997, this Commission directed the respondents to take into consideration the tender submitted by and on behalf of the applicant alongwith the tenders submitted by other parties. That would certainly be time-consuming. IT transpires from the orders passed by this Commission from time to time in this contempt proceeding that the respondents were desirous of implementing the aforesaid order passed by this Commission on 1st August, 1997. IT is not in dispute that the aforesaid order has been complied with by placing some orders with the applicant some time in March, 1999. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to come to any conclusion that the respondents are guilty of deliberate violation of this Commission''s order passed on 1st August, 1997. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no action in contempt deserves to be taken against the respondents in this case. The Show Cause Notice for an action in contempt issued in this case deserves to be and is hereby discharged. The contempt application accordingly stands disposed of however with no order as to costs on the fact and in the circumstances of the case. Contempt Application disposed of.