Del. HC Stresses Mandatory Legal Assistance to Preserve Fairness and Integrity of Criminal Trials  ||  Supreme Court: Delhi High Court Ruling upheld on Taekwondo National Sports Federation Recognition  ||  SC: Blockchain-Based Digitisation of Land Records Necessary to Reduce Property Document Litigation  ||  Supreme Court to NCLT : Limit Power to Decide Intellectual Property Title Disputes under IBC  ||  Bombay HC: Railway Employee With Valid Privilege Pass is Bona Fide Passenger Despite Missing Entries  ||  Delhi High Court: Mere Pleadings Made To Prosecute or Defend a Case Do Not Amount To Defamation  ||  Delhi High Court: Asking an Accused To Cross-Examine a Witness Without Legal Aid Vitiates The Trial  ||  Delhi High Court: Recruitment Notice Error Creates No Appointment Right Without Vacancy  ||  Supreme Court: Subordinate Legislation Takes Effect Only From its Publication in The Official Gazette  ||  Supreme Court: DDA Must Adopt a Litigation Policy To Screen Cases and Avoid Unnecessary Filings    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved