Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)
Satyanarayan Mandir And Rokadia ... vs Sadhu Vrajlal Laxmidas And Ors. on 12 December, 1996 cites

M. Venugopal vs The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance ... on 31 January, 1994

; M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh , and recently in the case of Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad , has dealt with in detail the effect of a statutory fiction and the limitation of the Court to ignore the mandate of the Legislature, unless it is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. So far Sub-section (1) of Section 33, is concerned, it mandates that agreements covered under different clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 33, shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act to be agreements relating to restrictive trade practices. By the deeming Clause one is not required to treat any imaginary state of affairs as real but to treat the agreements specified and enumerated in Sub-section (1) of Section 33, as agreements relating to restrictive trade practices. It can be said that Parliament after having examined different trade practices, has identified such trade practices which have to be held as restrictive trade practices for the purposes of the Act. To keep such trade practices beyond controversy in any proceeding a deeming clause has been introduced in Sub-section (1) of Section 33, saying that they shall be deemed to be restrictive trade practices. In this background, according to us, there is not much scope for argument that although a particular agreement, is covered by one or the other clause of Sub-section (1) of Section 33, still it shall not amount to an agreement containing conditions which can be held to be restrictive trade practices within the meaning of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 253 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next