Find a Lawyer

D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY/THROUGH CHAIRPERSON versus MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY

Appeals from Sections 6, 3, 11, 12, 2 and 20 of the High Court for powers of unlawful restraint, jurisdiction and scope of authority scope monopoly control authority which the appellants denied. It was that the parallel increase in prices was more than enough in the given period, from which there was sufficient material from which a contract or cartel could be legally demonstrated by an improper order of the authority indirectly that the authority could not find it. Whether the prices go up by the same amount or the prices of different cement manufacturers are at different levels and so on. Yes, there was a parallel increase in prices in different quantities and at different dates, ie there was usually an upward movement at the same time so the question was whether it was valid or not? In addition to the law, in fact, to evaluate the parallel value increase for the authority that contained a contract or cartel that applied to Section 6 (1), Monopolies and Compulsory Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 In the air, any fixing of prices under the ordinance was unlawful; it was irrelevant whether prices were rising, falling, stabilizing, high or low or in between, if they were fixed. Was (and is irrelevant to the extent to which it was determined) by agreement between the original or potential competitor, under the ordinance, and c. Shin was outlawed for 6 (1) purposes. The ordinance could not be indirectly assessed by the situation that the parallel business behavior or conscious balance was not in itself an advance or allow for such an approach. famous supreme court advocate from Loralai lawyer