6/2/2018 [Case Brief] M/s Haridas Exports v/s All India Float Glass Association & Others, 2002

sociation & Others, 2002 – Law Briefs

COMPETITION LAW

[Case Brief] M/s Haridas Exports v/s All India Float Glass
Association & Others, 2002

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2017 BY ADITYA GOR

  

30
Nov

CASE M/S HARIDAS EXPORTS V/S ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS

ASSOCIATIONS & OTHERS

Case Number Civil Appeal No 2330 of 2000

Court Supreme Court of India

Bench Chief Justice BN Kirpal, Justice YK Sabharwal, Justice KG Balakrishna

Author of the Chief Justice BN Kirpal

judgement

http://lawbriefs.in/2017/11/30/case-brief-m-s-haridas-v-s-all-india-float-glass-association-others/ 1/6
6/2/2018 [Case Brief] M/s Haridas Exports v/s All India Float Glass Association & Others, 2002 – Law Briefs

CASE M/S HARIDAS EXPORTS V/S ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS

ASSOCIATIONS & OTHERS

Decided On 22 July 2002

Relevant Act/ Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act - Sections 1(2), 2(e),
Sections 2(o), 2(u), 12, 14. 33, 35, 37
Customs Tariffs Act, 1975- Section 9

The facts of M/s Haridas Exports v/s All India Float Glass Association:

The present case is a three-judge bench decision consisting of Chief Justice BN Kirpal,
Justice YK Sabharwal, Justice KG Balakrishna. It was delivered on 22nd July 2002.

On 10-09-1998, Respondent 1 filed a complaint before the MRTP commission under

sections 33(1)(j), (ja) and section 36A read with section 2(o) of the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP) against three Indonesian companies alleging that
they were manufacturing float glass and were selling the same at predatory prices in India
and were hence restoring to restrictive and unfair trade practices.

The appellant, which is the Indian importer of float glass from Indonesia, refuted the
complaint by alleging that the respondent 1 was a cartel of Indian manufacturers of float
glass which was, in fact, exporting out of India at a price lower than their own cost of
production.

The MRTP commission allowed the application and restrained the Indonesian companies
from exporting to India their float glass production at predatory prices. The appeal is thus
made to the Supreme Court by the appellants. Thus the issues before the Honourable
Supreme Court are:

1. Whether the MRTP Act has extra-territorial operations? / Can the MRTP commission
pass orders against the parties who are not in India and who do not carry on business
here and where agreements are entered into outside India with no Indian being a party
to it?

2. Whether the principle of “effects doctrine” has any application in India?

3. Whether the Anti-Dumping provision ousts the jurisdiction of the MRTP commission?

4. Whether an agreement to import by the Indian party from Indonesia at predatory pricing
required to be registered as per section 33(1)(j) of the Act?

The Supreme Court decision-

With regards the first issue, the Supreme Court opined that reading sections 1(2), 2(e)
and section 14 together makes it clear that the Act has no extraterritorial operation.
Further, this principle is strengthened by Explanation I to section 35.

http://lawbriefs.in/2017/11/30/case-brief-m-s-haridas-v-s-all-india-float-glass-association-others/ 2/6
6/2/2018 [Case Brief] M/s Haridas Exports v/s All India Float Glass Association & Others, 2002 – Law Briefs

With regards to the second issue, the Supreme Court held that if any restrictive trade
practice as a consequence of outside agreement is carried out in India then the
Commission shall have jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Act if it comes to the
conclusion that the same is prejudicial to public interest. This “effects doctrine” will clothe
the MRTP commission with jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order even though a
transaction has been carried outside the territory of India if the effect of that has resulted
in restrictive trade in India.

With regards to the third issue, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of MRTP
commission is not ousted by the Anti-Dumping provisions in the Customs Act. The two
acts operate in a different field and have different purposes.

With regards the fourth issue, the court opined that on the basis of the facts of the present
case, the case of predatory pricing has not made out. In the case at hand, the
monopolistic Indian undertakings seem to have faced competition. The reduction in the
price of Indian importer is to the benefit of Indian customer. Import of material at prices
lower than that prevailing in India cannot per se be regarded as being prejudicial to public
interest.

Thus the present appeal was allowed by the Honourable Supreme Court and the order of
the commission was set aside.

Related Posts:
1. [Case Brief] Just Society v/s Union of India, 2017

2. [Case Brief] Ghanshyam Dass and Others v/s Dominion of India and Others, 1984

3. [Case Brief] Sharad Kumar v/s Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, 2002

4. [Case Brief] Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and others v. National Textile Corporation,
2002

  

This entry was posted in competition law and tagged Anti-Dumping, competition law, MRTP, predatory pricing.

ADITYA GOR
Aditya Gor is the Director at Law Briefs Legal Solutions. He can be
reached at admin@lawbriefs.in

http://lawbriefs.in/2017/11/30/case-brief-m-s-haridas-v-s-all-india-float-glass-association-others/ 3/6