Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In response, the learned counsel for the First Respondents/Petitioners submits that they are Dealers of various fast moving consumer goods, Groceries and Dairy products and was purchasing Butter/Ghee/Flavoured milk and other products of the Appellant/Third Respondent sold under the name of "Aavin" from the Fifth Respondent/Distributor for the area and the Fifth Respondent refused to sell its dairy products to them on the ground that they were selling the products to consumers at prices lesser than maximum retail price (M.R.P.) fixed for these products. In this regard, the First Respondents/Petitioners sent a letter dated 09.02.1999 explaining the position and also called upon the Fifth Respondent to resume supplies, etc.,

12. According to the learned counsel for the First Respondents/Petitioners, the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petitions was right in observing that 'in event of non supply of the products it is the duty of the Court to enforce the same', etc., and consequently allowed the writ petitions with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the Fifth Respondent in each cases.

13. Countering the submissions of the Learned counsel for the First Respondents/Petitioners, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Third Respondent submits that the Appellant/Third Respondent is marketing its Dairy products under the name 'Aavin' in the city of Madras through wholesale Dealers/Franchise Retail Dealers and through parlours run by it and the wholesale dealers are paying the entire product costs in advance by means of Bank Drafts and they take delivery of Aavin products and distribute to the Retailers as per the prices determined by the Appellant/Third Respondent from time to time.

14. As a matter of fact, the wholesale dealers are given the trade commission at the rate of 4% and the Appellant/Third Respondent allows 6% retailers' margin and the retailers are selling the dairy products at the recommended maximum retail price and not more than that and in regard to the retailers appointed by the Appellant/Federation they are given 6% margin for Dairy products.

15. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Third Respondent contends that there is no privity of contract between the First Respondents/Petitioners and the Appellant/Third Respondent and indeed the privity of contract is between the Appellant/Third Respondent and its wholesale Dealers/Franchisees only. Moreover, the Appellant/Third Respondent is not legally competent to compel either its wholesale Distributors or its Franchise Retailers to supply its Aavin products to the First Respondents/Petitioners, when they are acting under the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

16. The other contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Third Respondent is that the First Respondents/Petitioners are the Franchisees of M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., Chennai are making use of Aavin brand butter marketed by the the Appellant/Third Respondent as 'Loss Leaders' when it re-sell them otherwise than in a genuine seasonal or clearance sale not for the purpose of making a profit on resale but for the purpose of attracting to the establishment at which the goods are sold customers likely to purchase other goods, etc., and as per Section 40(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the wholesalers/Retailers of the the Appellant/Third Respondent are entitled to withhold supplies of Aavin butter if they have reasonable cause to believe that the First Respondents/Petitioners have been using as Loss Leaders any goods of the same or similar description whether obtained from that supplier or not, etc.,