Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9  ||  Tripura HC: Tax Authorities Cannot Revive Repealed VAT Powers or Retain Deposits Without Law  ||  J&K&L HC: Obtaining a Passport is a Constitutional Right; Citizens Need Not Prove Travel Necessity  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Report in Non-Cognizable Offence is a Complaint; Accused Must Be Heard First  ||  Kerala HC: Hospitals Must Display Rates and Cannot Deny Emergency Care For Lack of Advance Payment  ||  Orissa HC: Convict’s Refusal to Appeal Through Legal Aid Must be Recorded in Writing  ||  SC Halts Deer Translocation From Delhi’s AN Jha Park And Orders a Probe into DDA Negligence    

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