Find a Lawyer

KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. versus MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY

Monopolies and Restricted Business Practices (Control and Prevention) Sections 3, 4 (b), 11, 12 (1) (a) (iii) of the Ordinance 1970 and 20 unnecessary concentration of economic power mill Technical in the 1987 package , Was commercially and financially unsustainable. The appellant company offered by the financial institution for the restoration of the mill requires that the mill be subject to a loan of Rs 40 million from the financial institution and no interest will be charged in it, the authority said. Directed to retrieve the company from the mill. The entire amount, which will be charged as interest at Rs 40 million. Its equity in the mill was at stake and the mill was an unsecured lender and its permanent existence was in the best interest of the appellant company as a viable unit. And its shareholders' appellant accepted the condition imposed by the financial institution on the part presented by its shareholders through a generally accepted contract. If this decision were not made, the appellant company would have wasted its investment in the mill and the business receipts of 40 million, leaving such appellant a serious financial loss to the appellant company and its shareholders, which would have occurred to the mill. The insolvent company was dismissed as authority, while the approval of the immovable order ignored the material fact that a secured lender of the financial institution had written off the mill's 6/2-year mortgage interest. If a secured lender, such as a financial institution, can benefit from the first indictment on the assets of the assassin, the interest on it will be deducted, and then its loan repayment will be delayed. how to become a advocate from Khoski lawyer