PL.K. Naghappan vs Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This writ appeal has been filed by one PL.K. Naghappan, who is appearing in person, impugning a judgment passed by a learned Judge of the writ court dated 24.4.2008, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The bare facts of the case are that the Appellant was the Managing Director of Ex-Nagappan Recoveries (P) Ltd. The case of the Appellant is that he entered into a debt collection service agreement with M/s. American Express Travel Related Services, the second Respondent herein, in the year 1996. It is not in dispute that the said services are owned by the American Express Bank Limited, a Scheduled Bank under the Reserve Bank of India.

In terms of the agreement between the parties, the Appellant was authorised to collect credit card outstandings of the second Respondent. The case of the Appellant is that he was collecting the dues by following lawful method, but ultimately the said agency agreement between the Appellant and the second Respondent was terminated by an order dated 1,2,1999. The said termination order runs as follows:

In continuation to our discussion and as per terms and conditions of our business contract with your Collections Agency, we would like to terminate the contract effective 1st March, 1999. You are requested to stop follow up on all American Express card outstandings from the above mentioned date.

We thank you for all the support and services rendered to American Express.

The said termination order was challenged by the Appellant as an instance of unfair trade practice before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The said Commission, by a detailed order dated 17.8.2005, was pleased to hold that the termination of agency agreement cannot be said to be an unfair trade practice. The Commission further held that if the Appellant feels aggrieved, he could have filed a civil suit, assuming but not admitting that there was unlawful termination. In coming to the said conclusion, the Commission relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Peico Electronics and Electricals and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . We find that in paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Commission is not empowered to probe into the question whether a contract was validly terminated under one clause or the other. It was made clear by the Supreme Court that the Commission cannot assume the role of a civil court in this regard. We are of the view that following the said ratio, the Commission rightly rejected the complaint of the Appellant herein. When the said order of the Commission was challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court, the learned single Judge, by following the same line of reasoning, dismissed the writ petition after a detailed hearing. The said order has been challenged before us.

We have looked into the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. We find that ''unfair trade practices'' have been defined u/s 36A of the said Act. Looking into the said definition, we do not find that cancellation of the agency agreement by the second Respondent can fall under the scope of ''unfair trade practice'' under the said Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to pass any order on this appeal. We affirm the order passed by the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

We, however, make it clear that the dismissal of this appeal will not prevent the Appellant, if he is so advised, from approaching the appropriate civil court for redressal of his grievances, if any, in accordance with law.