Order on the application dated the 30th December, 1974, of respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
1. In this application the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have applied that the applicant be ordered to furnish further and better particulars of his application. Dr. Singhvi on behalf of these respondents has drawn our attention to Regulation 55 which provides that an application by the Registrar shall contain the facts which constitute a restrictive trade practice and if it is in relation to any agreement registered with him it shall set out such portions of the agreement as may be necessary to bring out the facts complained of.
2. This case is based on an agreement. The Registrar has set out in the application the clauses of the agreement about which he complains that they relate to restrictive trade practices. There are two agreements which are the subject matter of this application. The clauses of the first agreement are set out in para. 2 of the application and the restrictive trade practices are set out in para. 3. The clauses of the second agreement are set out in para. 5 and the restrictive trade practices in para. 6 of the application. The Registrar stated that according to him all the clauses of the agreement set out in paragraphs 2 and 5 collectively supported each of the restrictive trade practices set out in paragraphs 3 and 6 respectively.
3. None the less we think that Clauses I and II of para. 6 are vague as they contain a number of alternatives and the respondents are entitled to know which of the alternatives the Registrar has in mind. We, therefore, order that wherever there are alternatives the Registrar should furnish further and better particulars of the alternatives which according to him are applicable to the paras. of the agreement. The particulars to be furnished within a fortnight in the form of a statement.
4. Dr. Singhvi further argued that the Registrar be ordered to furnish particulars of the instances where the clauses of the two agreements have been put into practice. We are afraid this is asking for disclosure of evidence of the Registrar. In case the respondents deny that the clauses have been put into practice the Registrar may be called upon by evidence to prove that they have been put into practice.
The question of instances will arise then. In our opinion the question of instances does not arise at this stage.
5. Dr. Singhvi states that para. 6 of the application is vague in the absence of relationship between the restrictive trade practices and the respective clauses of the agreement. We are of the opinion that in view of the statement made by the Registrar there is no substance in this contention.
6. The respondents will file their replies to the application within 3 weeks after the receipt of the particulars.