1987 PLP 351 (MLD)

30-9-1974 1,36,02,581 20,68,322 19,14,805 1,56,70,903 30-9-1975 1,36,35,420 27,70,983 35,33,663 1,54,06,403 30-9-1976 1,36,68,475 53,21,548 47,05,000 1,89,90,023 As the undertaking was not owned by a public company and its assets exceeded rupees one crore in value it was under statutory obligation to register itself under section 16(l)(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance 970 thereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) within fifteen days from the date of its first becoming liable for registration i.e. in 1973. The undertaking however failed to do se and, therefore notice under section 19 of the Ordinance was issued to the undertaking to show cause why penalty should not be imposed.

2. In reply to the show-cause notice the only ground of substance taken was that the total assets of the firm were less than one crore of rupees. An opportunity was given to the undertaking to substantia5 its contention and the matter was fixed for hearing on 21-6-1979 Karachi. On that date however no one on behalf of the undertaking attended although registered notice with regard to the date of hearing had been served on the undertaking.

3. As already stated the only ground taken in the reply to the show-cause notice was that the total assets of the undertaking we, not more than one crore of rupees. This contention was obvious; raised by the undertaking by taking into account only its fixed assets. The matter with regard to value of assets was discussed a detail in the cases of Messrs Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd. reported in 1986 C L C 2728, Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan) Limited reported in 1986 C L C 2738 and Messrs Jupiter Textile Mills Limited in 1986 C L C 2744. In the instant case although an opportunity was given to the undertaking to appear and support its contention at a hearing, none has appeared.

4. As shown above, the total value of assets of the undertaking which was not owned as a public company exceeded the limit of Rs. crore right from 1973 and the undertaking was clearly liable for registration since, 1973. There were reported cases of the Authority even in 1973 to indicate the basis for taking the value of assets of an undertaking. Despite this the undertaking chose to disregard the statutory provisions of the Ordinance. It is, therefore, quite clear that the failure to register was wilful. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case a penalty of Rs.5000 is imposed under section 19 of the Ordinance. This should be paid by 1-8-1979. The undertaking is also directed to apply for registration within two weeks of the receipt of this order failing which further penal action will be taken. A.A./36/M Order accordingly.