Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

100.The said decision was subsequently approved by a three Judge Bench of this Court reported Union of India and Others v. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Others - (2008) 13 SCC 369. The said decision also fully supports the stand of the appellant/SEBI.

101.On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed upon the decision reported in Haridas Exports (supra). That case arose under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short “MRTP Act, 1969). The appellant in that case was aggrieved by the orders passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, whereby Indonesian manufacturers of float glass had been restrained from  exporting the same to India at allegedly predatory prices. While considering the correctness of the order impugned in that case, the question relating to extra territorial jurisdiction came up for consideration.

"Any agreement to sell goods imported into India at such prices as would have the effect of eliminating competition or a competitor."

Thus, the agreement requiring registration must be in respect of goods after their import into India.”

46. It is possible that persons outside India indulge in such trade practices, not necessarily restricted to the effectuation of prices within India, which have the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition in India or gives rise to a restrictive trade practice within India then in respect of that restrictive trade practice, the MRTP Commission will have jurisdiction. The counsel for the respondents is right in submitting that if the effect of restrictive trade practices came to be felt in India because of a part of the trade practice being implemented here the MRTP Commission would have jurisdiction. This "effects doctrine" will clothe the MRTP Commission with jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order  even though a transaction, for example, which results in exporting goods to India at predatory price, which was in effect a restrictive trade practice, had been carried out outside the territory of India if the effect of that had resulted in a restrictive trade practice in India. If power is not given to the MRTP Commission to have jurisdiction with regard to that part of trade practice in India which is restrictive in nature then it will mean that persons outside India can continue to indulge in such practices whose adverse effect is felt in India with impugnity. A competition law like the MRTP Act is a mechanism to counter cross border economic terrorism. Therefore, even though such an agreement may enter into outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission but if it results in a restrictive trade practice in India then the Commission will have jurisdiction under Section 37 to pass appropriate orders in respect of such restrictive trade practice.” (Emphasis added)