Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.101 of 1974, decided on 8th October, 1986.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 20‑‑Notice to supply required information‑‑Non‑compliance of‑ Effect‑‑Notice, requiring appellant to submit required information to Authority was received by appellant on the very date on which appellant was asked to submit such information‑‑Appellant, however, without asking for fresh notice, supplied information to Authority few days after appointed date‑‑Default on behalf of appellant in supplying information on due date was not wilful, but purely technical‑‑Authority, held, should have taken lenient view of such non‑compliance of notice on behalf of appellant‑‑Appellate Court modifying order of Authority reduced fine imposed on appellant in circumstances.
N. A. Farooqui for Petitioner.
A. Rashid Nizamani for Deputy Attorney‑General and Kamal Azfar and Qamar Hussain for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1986.
This appeal under section 20 of Ordinance No. V of 1970 is directed against the order passed on 4‑10‑1974 by the Monopoly Control Authority imposing a fine of Rs.5,000 on the appellant for non‑compliance of the directive of the Authority issued on 18‑5‑1974. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the notice dated 18‑5‑1974, requiring the petitioner to submit the required information by 20th May 1974 was received by the appellant on 20th May 1974 and, therefore, it was impossible for them to comply with the requisition contained in the notice. It is an admitted position that the information required by the respondent No.2 was supplied to them by the appellant by 10th June, 1974. As the notice requiring the submission of information was served on the very date by which they were asked to submit the required information, it cannot be held that there was any wilful default on their part in supplying the required information.
In such circumstances the Authority should have taken a lenient view of the non‑compliance, if any, as the same was purely technical. More so when the appellant supplied the required information by 10th June 1974 without asking for a fresh notice allowing them sufficient time for furnishing the required information.
I accordingly modify the order and reduce the fine to Rs.100 (Rupees one hundred) only. The appeal is partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
H. B. T. /A‑6/ K Appeal partly allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer