Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) In every State where we sell Mc.Dowell No.1 Whisky, Mc.Dowell No.1 Brandy and Bagpiper Whisky including Tamil Nadu, the cost of inputs of all the above items differs from State to State;
(e) Packaging costs in each State for the products, namely Mc.Dowell No.1 Whisky, Mc.Dowell No.1 Brandy and Bagpiper Whisky are different, since for instance in Tamil Nadu there are no mono cartons (i.e., the outer cartons) and blends, the lables are printed on plain paper whereas in Andhra Pradesh each bottle is packed in a mono carton and the label is printed on special foil;

731.71 767.79 826.22 705.60 719.25 808.50 M/s. Tilaknagar Ind. Ltd., MANSION HOUSE FRENCH BRANDY Matching the rates with 5% over Kerala prices 898.61 925.00 949.33 761.09 784.50 794.28

(j) That the petitioners not having submitted revised offers, the answering respondent did not approve the rates for the following 14 brands :

1. Mc.Dowell's Ceaser-VSOP Brandy
2. Mc.Dowell's Pre Blue Riband Ex.Dry Gin.
3. Mc.Dowell's Orig, Red Riband Pre. Vodka
4. Mc.Dowell's Premium Malt Whisky.
5. Mc.Dowell's Vintage Classic Pre. Mail WY.
6. No.1 Mc.Brandy.
7. No.1 Mc.Whisky.
8. No. 1 Mc-Dowell's Celeration XXX Rum.
9. Bag Piper Gold Premium Whisky.
10. Bag Piper Whisky.
11. Honey Bee Brandy.
12. Premium High Society Dry Gin.
13. Premium Romanv Vodka
14. Mc Dowells Diplomat World Class Whisky.

As in the case of the petitioners, in respect of other suppliers too there was no agreement in respect of certain common brands supplied by them in other States. However, there was no complaint from them, in this regard.

-do-

6. The Royal Peg Prestige Wh.

M/s.

White & Mackey Ind. Ltd.

7. Contessa Select XXX rum M/s Rampur Distiteries

8. Big Ben Londong Dry gin M/s Mohan Bre.& Dst. Ltd.

9. Golden Eagle Doctor Brandy

-do-

10. Triple Crown Bandy

-do-

11. Boque Pure Grape French Brandy Etc.

-do-

(o) That the allegation that the answering respondent is indulging in hostile discriminating against the petitioners and invidious discrimination in favour of the first petitioner's competitors, is misconceived. The instances referred to by the petitioners namely M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and Officers Choice Whisky of M/s. B.D.A. Limited are of no relevance as these brands are not being sold in Tamil Nadu and thus the prices agreed for 1999-2000 were continued for the current year. Insofar as VSOP Ex-Shaw Brandy of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., is concerned, the prices quoted by the supplier for the current year 2000-2001 was Rs.647.80 as against their quotation for Rs.616.95 for the year 1998-1999 which is substantially lower than the rate of Rs.926.00 at which the brand is being sold in Tamil Nadu and in the circumstances the price of Rs.616.95 was accepted for this product, after negotiations. The other aspects relied upon by the petitioners do not offer any analogy. No.1 Mc.Whisky manufactured by the petitioners and Directors Black Whisky manufactured by Shaw Wallace and Company are not identical products, their blend and composition are different. The mere accident of identity of price of these products is not relevant. The mere accident of fact that these two brands fall in the same category price-wise docs not entitle extension of similar treatment, for the purpose of price negotiations.