2005 PLP 1056 (CLD)
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1056 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Monopoly Control Authority |
| Bench Members | Tariq Farook, Chairman, Muhammad Arshad Parwaiz and Abdul Ghaffar, Members |
| Parties | |
| 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 1056 (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 1056 (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 1056 (CLD) (). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rehan A. Khan for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing: 20th November, 2002, 11th January, 19th June (Adjourned) and 22nd July, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.19 & 21
Failure of Undertaking to furnish required informations
Undertaking concerned was asked to supply information/documents concerning activities of Undertaking, including information relating to its organization, business, trade practices and management etc., but Undertaking failed to do so despite it was reminded by Authority vide its letter
Undertaking was served with show-cause notice, but it did not respond. to said show-cause notice
Authority considering all aspects of case, held that default of Undertaking in furnishing information; was wilful
Authority ordered for imposing a penalty under S.19(1)(a) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 on Undertaking.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Nutripak Food Industries Limited (the Undertaking) was asked to supply the information/documents vide Letter No. 2(277)ENQ(DD-R&I)MCA/99 dated January 12, 2002 but if failed to do so. The Undertaking was reminded vide letter of even number dated March 07, 2002 in response to which vide its letter dated March 14, 2002 it submitted that the information-was under preparation and would be supplied within two weeks. However, this was not done. The Undertaking was, therefore, served with Show-Cause Notice No.56 of 2001-2002 on April 01, 2002, but it did not respond to the said ,show-cause notice: The matter was fixed for hearing on 20-11-2002 which was however, adjourned to January 11, 2003 on the written request of the Undertaking. The case was again adjourned on the written request of the Undertaking and was finally fixed, for hearing on 22-7-2003. On the said date of hearing Mr. Rehan A. Khan appeared on behalf of the respondent Undertaking as its authorized representative and argued the case. He admitted that the information called for by the Authority vide letter dated January 1 12, 2002 followed by a reminder dated March 7, 2002 was not supplied for the reason that the factory was closed since 1st July, 2001 and the management was busy in restructuring its loans etc., with the banks. He further admitted that the required information was supplied to the Authority on June 18, 2003. He apologized for the late submission of the information and also requested for a lenient view in this respect. The Authority considered all the aspects of the case and held that the default was wilful, It, therefore, ordered for imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) under section 19(1)(a) of the MRTPO, 1970 on the Undertaking. The penalty shall be paid within a month from the date of the order. H.B.T./1/MCA Order accordingly.