Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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