2005 PLP 290 (CLD)
| Citation | 2005 PLP 290 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Monopoly Control Authority |
| Bench Members | Tariq Farook, Chairman, Muhammad Arshad Parwaiz and Abdul Ghaffar, Members |
| Parties |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 290 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 290 (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 290 (CLD) (). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Ss.19(1)(a) & 21‑‑‑Non‑submission of document regarding annual audited accounts‑‑‑Imposition of penalty‑‑‑Authority allowed one month's time to Undertaking for 4ubmission of annual audited accounts for relevant year, but Undertaking having failed to do so, was served with a show‑cause notice under S.19(1)(a) of Monopolies and Restriction Trade Practices (Control and Preventions) Ordinance, 1970‑‑ Undertaking vide its letter requested for allowing it submission of .required documents after completion of financial year‑‑‑Authority accepted request of undertaking and fixed date of hearing but on due date neither Undertaking nor its duly authorized representative appeared‑‑‑Authority considered the fact that Undertaking remained under control of "Receiver" in compliance with orders of Banking Court and matter was pending before Banking Court for decision in respect of liabilities and losses sustained by Undertaking during Receiver's period‑‑ Authority after considering all facts decided that request for further extension in submission of audited account was not reasonable‑‑‑Authority imposed penalty of Rs.20, 000 under S.19(1)(a) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
The Monopoly Control Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") vide its order dated January 15, 2003 allowed two months time for submission of annual audited accounts for 2001 and 2002 to Messrs Chiltan Ghee Mills (Pot.) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Undertaking"). The Undertaking was required to supply the requisites documents by March 15, 2003 but it failed to do so. It was therefore, served with a show‑cause notice on April 09, 2003 under section 19(1)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"). The Undertaking vide its letter dated April 23, 2003 requested for allowing it submission of the requisite documents after completion of the financial year 2002 2003. The Authority accepted the request and fixed the hearing on July 26, 2003 vide hearing notice dated July 7, 2003 issued to the Undertaking. However, on the due date neither the undertaking nor any duly authorized representative appeared on its behalf.
2. The Authority observed that the Undertaking failed to comply with the order of the Authority dated January 15, 2003 under which it was required to submit its annual audited accounts for the years ended June 30, 2001 and 2002 by March 15, 2003.
3. The Authority however, considered the fact that the Undertaking remained under the control of the "Receiver" B in compliance with the orders of the Banking Court Quetta from October, 1999 to 8th July, 2000 and the matter is pending before the Honourable Judge, Banking Court for decision in respect of the liabilities and losses sustained by the Undertaking during the "Receiver's" period. The Undertaking had earlier made a written request for submission of the audited accounts for 2001‑2002 by the completion of the financial years 2002‑2003, but it failed to do so.
4. After considering all the facts the Authority decided that the request for further extension in the submission of audited accounts for 2001‑2002 is not reasonable, hence it is rejected. The Authority, therefore, imposed a penalty of C Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) under section 19(1)(a) of the Ordinance. The penalty shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order. H. BA/15/MCA Order accordingly