Shri. Nadie Jauhri Vs. Shri. Sanjay Mehrotra, Chairman, The Futkar Dawa Vyapar Mandal, Kanpur and Another.
- Citation33/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commission may close an information under Section 26(2) where, on the material before it, no prima facie case of contravention of Section 3 is made out. An allegation that is not substantiated by evidence on record does not warrant investigation, and the Commission may decide that question on the information and its annexures without directing the Director General to investigate. Where the information rests on a document that does not, on its face, indicate that it originated from the opposite party, and the only other support is photographs of retailers displaying a banner, the allegation of a concerted boycott is not substantiated for the purposes of Section 26(2). Without information on whether the boycott was brought to the knowledge of the affected enterprise, whether it was within that enterprise's contemplation, and what action followed, no prima facie contravention under Section 3 is shown. A prayer for relief under Section 33 falls with the information. Where no prima facie case under Section 3 exists, there is no basis for interim relief, and the prayer is rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The instant information has been filed by Shri. Nadie Jauhri (‘Informant’) alleging contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) by Shri Sanjay Mehrotra, Chairman, Futkar Dawa Vyapar Mandal, Kanpur (‘Opposite Party No. 1’) and Shri. Rajendra Saini, President, Dawa Vyapar Mandal, Kanpur (‘Opposite Party No. 2’).
2. The Informant is stated to be an activist in the field of pharma trade for more than 15 years and has always been against unfair trade practices and corruption.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 is the Chairman of Futkar Dawa Vyapar Mandal and the Opposite Party No. 2 is the President of Dawa Vyapar Mandal, which is a public trust but is not registered with any competent authorities.
4. It has been stated that Opposite Party No.1 issued a circular dated 10.07.2022, stating that no chemist shall buy or sell products of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (‘Macleods’) w.e.f. 13.07.2022, till further information is received from Drug House and Srushti Drug House located at Birhana Road. It has been also stated that the said circular was circulated widely in the public domain, which is in contravention of provisions of Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of Act.
5. It has been stated that Shri. Sanjay Mehrotra and Shri. Rajendra Saini have not only influenced but also controlled the working and decision making of the Futkar Dawa Vyapar Mandal. It has been stated that boycott is an unfair trade practice and corruption, which was done under the influence of the Opposite Parties, and the same was also unlawful and arbitrary.
6. It has been further averred that boycott of medicines of Macleods is also in contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Further, as per the Informant, the boycott of medicines of Macleods creates shortage and increases black market by reducing consumer choice and competition.
Case No. 33 of 2022
7. It has also been stated that the Informant has been informed by many patients, along with photographs, that they are unable to buy their prescribed medicines of Macleods because the said company has been boycotted by the Futkar Dawa Vyapar Mandal.
8. The Informant has also sought interim relief by way of seeking a direction from the Commission to the Director General to conduct investigation into the matter. Based on the aforesaid facts and allegations, the Informant has prayed the Commission to impose penalty on the Futkar Dawa Vyapar Mandal, Kanpur, in terms of Section 27 of the Act.
9. The Commission in its ordinary meeting held on 13.09.2022 considered the Information and other material available on record and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.
10. The Commission notes that the Informant has alleged that, through the circular dated 10.07.2022, the Opposite Party No.1 directed that no chemist shall buy or sell products of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd with effect from 13.07.2022, till further information is received from Drug House and Srushti Drug House located at Birhana Road. The Informant has also alleged that the boycott of medicines creates shortages and increases black market by reducing consumer choice and competition. This has been alleged to be in contravention of provisions of Section 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.
11. Upon perusal of the circular dated 10.07.2022 issued by Opposite Party No.1, annexed with the Information, the Commission notes that the Informant has rested his information on the strength of the said circular which, ex-facie, does not bear any indication of having originated from Opposite Party No.1. The Commission further notes that no credible evidence has been provided by the Informant to substantiate the allegations of boycott of products of Macleods except some photographs of certain retailers holding a banner stating that buying and selling medicines manufactured by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited has been banned. There is no information as to whether the same was brought to the knowledge of Macleods and if it was in its contemplation and what action, if any, followed.
Case No. 33 of 2022
12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission is of the prima-facie view that the allegations raised by the Informant are not substantiated by any evidence on record, and thus, no case of contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Act, warranting an investigation into the matter, is made out.
13. In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, and the information filed is directed to be closed forthwith against the Opposite Parties under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises, and the same is also rejected.
14. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Informant accordingly.
Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson
Sd/- (Sangeeta Verma) Member
Sd/- (Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi) Member
New Delhi Date: 15-09-2022
Case No. 33 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free