BEFORE THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION 

Appearances : S. P. Pahwa for DG(I & R). Rajiv Kapur for the Respondents. 

ORDER 

DIVECHA, J, CHAIRMAN 

1. The respondents have moved an application for discharge of the notice of enquiry (hereinafter 'the NOE') on the ground that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and to try this proceeding in view of section 4(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter 'the MRTP Act'). The Director General (Investigation and Registration) (hereinafter 'the DG') has filed his reply and has resisted this application on various grounds. 

2. It would be quite proper to look at certain facts giving rise to the present proceeding. A complaint was filed by one Shri D. Mangilal Jain for non-allotment of a locker by respondent No. 3. The investigation into the complaint was entrusted to the DG at the behest of this Commission. The DG submitted his preliminary investigation report (hereinafter 'the PIR'). According to the DG, respondent No. 3 was demanding a deposit from the applicants desirous of hiring safe deposit lockers. According to DG, respondent No. 3 was not maintaining any waiting list of applicants for lockers and lockers were not allotted on the first come first served basis. Thereupon an NOE came to be issued charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practice within its meaning contained in the MRTP Act. The respondents have filed their reply and have resisted the NOE on several grounds. They have, inter alia, contended that they were carrying the business of banking strictly in accordance with the directions and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter 'the RBI') from time to time. The respondents have in their reply pressed into service section 4(2) of the MRTP Act in support of its contention that the MRTP Act would not be applicable to the respondents and this Commission has, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain and to try this proceeding. 

3. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the issues have been framed by the order passed on 26th February, 1997. It did not include the issue relating to the maintainability of the present proceeding on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The matter has gone to trial and the parties have led evidence also. At the stage of final hearing, the respondents have moved the present application for discharge of the NOE by pressing into service section 4(2) of the MRTP Act. Since the question raised is with respect to the maintainability of the proceeding for want of jurisdiction, the matter has been placed before us for deciding that issue. 

4. It would be quite proper to look at section 4(2) of the MRTP Act. The relevant provisions read : 

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or elsewhere in this Act, so much of the provisions of this Act, as relate to matters introspect of which specific provisions exist in the - ... 

(ii) State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), or the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), ... 

shall not apply to a banking company, the State Bank of India or a subsidiary bank, as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), or an insurer, as the case may be." 

5. Since the respondents are State Bank of India established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the SBI Act'), it will be necessary to look at the relevant provisions contained therein. Section 33 thereof empowers the State Bank to carry on and to transact the business of banking as defined in section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter 'the BR Act') and to engage in any one or more of other forms of business specified in section 6(1) thereof. The providing of safe deposit vaults is one of the forms of business specified in section 6 (1)(a) of the BR Act. It is a matter of common knowledge that safe deposit vaults contain lockers for safe custody of valuable articles placed therein. 

6. It is, however, true that the State Bank is not a banking company within its definition contained in section 5(c) of the BR Act. It is equally true that, simply because the State Bank is permitted to carry on one or more forms of business as provided in section 6(1) thereof, will not be amenable to section 35A thereof. As rightly submitted by Shri Pahwa for the DG, the Division Bench ruling of this Commission in the case of DG (I & R) v. Daewoo Motors India reported in [1999] CTJ 4 will not be applicable in this case as it has been decided on interpretation of the relevant provisions contained in the BR Act. Again, as rightly submitted by learned advocate Shri Pahwa for the DG, the ruling of this Commission in RTPE 198/96 and allied matters decided on 13th January, 1999 also will not be applicable as it has followed the aforesaid ruling of this Commission in the case of Daewoo Motors (supra). 

7. However, as rightly submitted by learned advocate Shri Kapur for the respondents, we will have to scan and to scrutinise the relevant provisions contained in the SBI Act in order to find out whether or not any provision exists for the purposes of section 4(2) of the MRTP Act. Learned advocate Shri Kapur for the respondents has brought to our notice section 18 of the SBI Act in support of his submission that it answers the relevant provision for the purposes of section 4(2) of the MRTP Act. Section 18 of the SBI Act reads : 

"Central Board to be guided by directions of Central Government - (1) In the discharge of its functions, including those relating to a subsidiary bank the State Bank shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Chairman of the State Bank, give to it. 

(2) All directions given by the Central Government shall be given through the Reserve Bank and, if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final." 

8. It becomes clear from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision contained in section 18 of the SBI Act that in discharge of its functions the State Bank shall be guided by the directions in matters of policy involving public interest issued by the Central Government. As provided therein, such directions shall have to be issued through the RBI. It has further been provided therein that, if any question arises whether or not a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final. 

9. It has come on record in the present case that the RBI has issued directions by means of one memorandum of 21st July, 1984. It is the case of the respondents that they act according to these directions. As pointed out hereinabove, directions involving a policy matter will have to be issued by the Central Government through the RBI. It, therefore, stands to reason that the memorandum of 21st July, 1984 from the RBI is in the context of section 18 of the SBI Act. Whether or not it involves a policy matter involving public interest is the question to be decided by the Central Government and not by this Commission. A specific provision regarding a policy matter involving interest has been made in section 18 of the SBI Act. In that view of the matter, section 4(2) of the MRTP Act would come into play in the present proceeding. 

10. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the MRTP Act would not be applicable to the respondents qua its safe deposit vaults banking business by virtue of section 4(2) of the MRTP Act. The jurisdiction of this Commission is, therefore, excluded by virtue of the aforesaid statutory provision found contained in section 4(2) of the MRTP Act. In that view of the matter, this application for discharge of the NOE deserves to be accepted. 

11. In the result, this application for discharge of the NOE accepted. The NOE in this case is accordingly discharged, however, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.