Find a Lawyer

IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS CHILTAN GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED versus IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS CHILTAN GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED

Failure to submit documents relating to Section 19 (1) (a) and 21 annual audited accounts took a month for 4 clients of the annual audited accounts for the year related to the enforcement of the penal authority, but Undertaking did not The work was unsuccessful, under the showcase notice under section 19 (1) (a) of the Monopoly and Sanctions Trading Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, the required documents after the completion of the fiscal year under its letter. Permission has been requested to submit. On the date of the hearing but neither the Undertaking nor its authorized representative appeared on the due date, the Authority considered the fact that the Undertaking was under the control of the Recipient in compliance with the Banking Court orders and liabilities and damages. The matter for adjudication is pending before the Banking Court. After considering all the facts, the recipient's period was decided to continue working during the authority. Further request for extension of audit account was not appropriate. The Authority issued a monopoly and restrained business conduct (control and prevention) ordinance. , Fined Rs 20, 000 under section 19 (1) (a) of 1970. \ r \ n top civil advocates from Topi lawyer