2005 PLP 1086 (CLD)
File No.2(291)Enq/(DD-R&I)/MCA/2002
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1086 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Monopoly Control Authority |
| Bench Members | Tariq Farook, Chairman, Muhammad Arshad Parwaiz and Abdul Ghaffar, Members |
| Parties | File No.2(291)Enq/(DD-R&I)/MCA/2002 |
| Primary Law | Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1086 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1086 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Monopoly Control Authority bench comprising: Tariq Farook, Chairman, Muhammad Arshad Parwaiz and Abdul Ghaffar, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1086 (CLD) (File No.2(291)Enq/(DD-R&I)/MCA/2002). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hayee, Director Finance, Rupali Polyester Ltd. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.19 & 21
Failure of Undertaking to furnish requisite information
Undertaking was asked to supply required information/documents vide letter, but the Undertaking failed to comply same within stipulated period
In response to show-cause notice served on Undertaking by Authority, Undertaking had submitted that information having been supplied, show-cause notice be withdrawn
Required information was supplied by Undertaking with delay of eight days and reasons given by Undertaking for such delay of eight days, were not convincing
Authority imposed penalty on Undertaking under S.19(1)(a) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Rupali Polyester Limited (the Undertaking) was asked to supply the information/documents by A November 10, 2002 vide letter dated October 26, 2002 but it failed to comply within the stipulated period i.e. by 10th November, 2002. A Show-Cause Notice No.11 of 2002-2003 was, therefore, served on the Undertaking on November 18, 2002. Vide its letter dated November 15, 2002 the Undertaking submitted that its Chief Executive was out of country and by the time the Authority's letter came to his attention upon his return, the due date had expired. It further submitted that the information called for was very voluminous and would take some time for completion and promised to supply the same latest by next week. The requisite information/documents was furnished by the Undertaking vide its letter dated November 18, 2002.
2. In response to the show-cause notice, the Undertaking vide its letter dated November 23, 2002 submitted that the information was duly submitted vide its letter dated November 18, 2002 and therefore, requested for the withdrawal of the show-cause notice.
3. The matter was fixed for hearing on July 21, 2003 through hearing notice issued to the Undertaking on July 2, 2003. In response Mr. Abdul Hayee, Director, Finance, Rupali Polyester Limited appeared on behalf of the respondent Undertaking and repeated the arguments mentioned in para.1 supra. He admitted that vide letter dated October 26, 2002 Messrs Rupali Polyester Limited was required to furnish the requisite information to the Authority up to 10th November, 2002. But this could not' be done because Authority's letter was addressed to the Chief Executive who was out of country and by the time the letter came to his attention upon his return, the due date had expired. However, vide letter dated November 15, 2002 the Authority was informed that the requisite information would be submitted by next week and it was accordingly supplied vide letter dated November 18, 2002. He however, admitted that the delay was for eight days, only and requested.. the Authority for a lenient view as the delay was not wilful.
4. After considering all facts and the arguments of the Undertaking, the Authority decided that the reasons given for the delay are not convincing and therefore, ordered to impose a penalty of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) under section 19(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 on the Undertaking. The penalty shall be paid by the Undertaking within one month from the date of receipt of the order. H.B.T./4/MCA Order accordingly.