30 November 2020


Supreme Court

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. The Director (Research) on behalf of Deepak Khanna and Ors.



MRTP/ Competition Laws

Tata Motors’ high booking amount for Tata Indica not an unfair trade practice

The Court set aside an order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission finding Tata Motors guilty for charging too high a deposit price for its popular vehicle, the Tata Indica, and not paying interest on booking amounts paid by buyers. It accepted Tata’s submissions that a high deposit price was set to deter speculative buyers as, in 1999, Tata was newly entering the market for private vehicles and had based production on real demand for the car. The Court reiterated that the definition of unfair trade practice was not inclusive or flexible, but specific and limited, and the Commission had enlarged the scope of its investigation in violation of the rules of fairness.


Rajasthan Housing Board v. Parvati Devi (Smt.) MANU/SC/0340/2000
Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Anr. MANU/SC/0351/1989

Tags : Vehicle booking amount unfair trade practice

Share :