Although restrictive business practices were considered by the MRTP Commission to be a violation of the MRTP law, they were taken into account by the Supreme Court in the TELCO// case. Registrar of RT Agreement that in all cases where it is an agreement made by the RTP, the rule of the application of wisdom should be. The TELCO decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on the basis of similar decisions of the United States Supreme Court, which declared the application of the review of reasons in Continental TV v. GTE Sylvania.  The Supreme Court of India, which cited Mahindra and Mahindra v. Union of India12 and TELCO/. Registrar of RT13 that the rule of reason must be functional in this case, because the term “restricted business practices” is very broad and is not inclusive. In addition, in the case of Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of the U.S. P.14, it has been found that “must be assumed” is taken as a hypothesis and not as evidence itself, but only characteristics that lie the cause of the cause. Vertical agreements that identify with exercises that have alluded to section 3, paragraph 4 of the Competition Act must be dissected again in accordance with the study of the “rule of reason” provided for by the Competition Act. The appeal is, under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 (called the Act), against the judgment and scheduling of the monopolies and business practices commission (commission) of July 25, 1975.
In particular, the appeal process examines whether the agreement between the applicant Telco and its dealers to allocate the territories to its dealers, in which only bus and truck chassis dealers, designated by the company as vehicles manufactured by the company, constitute a “restrictive commercial practice”. The Supreme Court interpreted it “as a presumption and not as evidence itself,” but only as an indicative value of the burden of proof. In addition, vertical agreements relating to activities under Section 3, paragraph 4 of the Competition Act must be analysed in accordasing the case analysis rule under the Competition Act. Again, on the basis of a preliminary review of the terms of the agreement in question and its effects within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act, the Commission ordered the DG to conduct further investigations. Accordingly, such an agreement should not be anti-competitive; In addition, there must be a legitimate test of sensitivity. According to the Raghvan Commission`s report, it can be said that the anti-competitiveness test is itself a provision. This appears to be the result of the Commission`s considerable reliance on the situation in the United States with respect to certain prohibited agreements denounced.22 Facts – In this case, TELCO entered into an agreement with its dealers, in which dealers were allocated certain fixed areas where they were to sell Tata vehicles. This territorial restriction has been called into question as a “restrictive commercial practice”. The informant claimed that these e-commerce websites had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in the nature of “exclusive agreements” with the seller of goods or services. The informant explained that, as a result of these practices, the consumer has no choice in terms of the terms and conditions of purchase and price of goods and services and is required to either purchase the product on the terms of the site or not to sell the product as a whole. Is the practice of entering into an exclusive contract to sell and purchase goods through e-commerce contrary to the provisions? In this regard, SECL, as a monopoly supplier, was not prepared to negotiate the terms of the coal supply agreement or to guarantee supply obligations, so that SECL`s terms were not fair and were consistent with the objective for which the informant purchased coal.