At, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R.K. ANAND
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. R.L. SUDHIR
For the Complainant: R.D. Makheeja, Advocate. For the Respondent: U.P. Mathur, D.D. Pande, Advocates.
R.K. Anand, Member
1. We have heard the learned Advocates for the DG as well as that of the respondent. The DG made an application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 [‘the Act’ for brief] alleging that the respondent, Plastic Packers, adopted and indulged in restrictive trade practices by offering discriminatory discounts @ 5% of the value of orders received from Nitin Arora and Rajan Arora and @ 7% to Pharma Printers and this trade practice is violative of the provisions of Section 33(1)(e) of the Act. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent is that, admittedly, discriminatory discounts were given by the respondent but on two different products, namely, low density polythene bags and high density polythene bags. It has been clarified that the respondent is a small scale manufacturer of polythene tubes, sheets and bags and different rates of discounts/commission were paid on two different products and not on the same product. It is also stated that the respondent is also pleading gateways under Section 38(1)(h) of the Act and the respondent’s market share is 0.45% in Delhi which is quite negligible and is unlikely to have any material impact on competition. While total production of these products in NCT of Delhi is 1,00,000/- MT per annum, the respondent’s production is 450 MT per annum only. Moreover, as the respondent is a small scale manufacturer of polythene bags, its market area is confined mostly to Delhi and, in view of the competition, it has to give discounts to obtain orders. Learned Advocate for the DG concedes that the respondent has offered discounts @ 5% and 7% of the value of the orders received on two different products and is also entitled to the benefit of gateways pleaded on its behalf
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
. In that view of the matter, the present enquiry is closed and the Notice of Enquiry dated the 13th September, 1999 is discharged with no order as to costs. N.O.E. discharged.