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 jurisdictional scope monopoly control authority which appeals, were that prices I grew parallel. There was enough material in itself to allow a contract or cartel to be legally deferred by the authority's indirect injunction that the authority did not find that the prices increased by the same amount or by different cement manufacturers. Prices were at different levels and remained the same, different quantities increased and there was a parallel increase in prices on different dates, ie during the same period there was generally upward movement so the question was whether this was valid or not. No, as in both cases? 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), the monopolies and binding trade practices (control and prevention) Ordinance, 1970. Of course, any fixing of prices was illegal under the ordinance; it was totally irrelevant that prices were rising, falling, stabilizing, high or low or at any level, if they were being fixed ( And the quantity by which it was determined was irrelevant) through the agreement between the original or potential competitor, under the ordinance and section 6 (1) were illegal contracts for the purposes of. The ordinance cannot be indirectly assessed by the situation. Parallel business behavior or conscious balance was not enough to indicate or allow itself to be determined. female advocates from Kotla Arab Ali Khan lawyer