Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration  ||  SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: GST Exemption on Residential Lease Applies When Building is Sub-Leased for Hostel/PG Use  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Universities Cannot Retain Students’ Original Documents for Pending Fees  ||  NCLT: Damages from Contractual Disputes Cannot Form Basis for Initiating Insolvency Proceedings  ||  Del HC: Pre-SCN Consultation is Unnecessary in Large-Scale GST Fraud Cases with Complex Transactions  ||  Calcutta HC: Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Violates Natural Justice and Sets Aside the Award  ||  Raj HC Upholds Padmesh Mishra’s AAG Appointment, Noting Advocacy Skill isn’t Tied to Experience    

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. The Director (Research) on behalf of Deepak Khanna and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (07 Sep 2015)

Tata Motors’ high booking amount for Tata Indica not an unfair trade practice

MANU/SC/0979/2015

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Court set aside an order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission finding Tata Motors guilty for charging too high a deposit price for its popular vehicle, the Tata Indica, and not paying interest on booking amounts paid by buyers. It accepted Tata’s submissions that a high deposit price was set to deter speculative buyers as, in 1999, Tata was newly entering the market for private vehicles and had based production on real demand for the car. The Court reiterated that the definition of unfair trade practice was not inclusive or flexible, but specific and limited, and the Commission had enlarged the scope of its investigation in violation of the rules of fairness.

Relevant : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Parvati Devi (Smt.) MANU/SC/0340/2000 Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Anr. MANU/SC/0351/1989

Tags : VEHICLE   BOOKING AMOUNT   UNFAIR TRADE   PRACTICE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved