DG (IAndR), NEW DELHI vs ELGI AUTO ENGINEERING

THE present enquiry was instituted on the basis of the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) submitted by the DG. THE investigation on the basis of which the PIR was submitted was made on the complaint of Shri Vivek Bhalla. THE allegations against the respondents are that a bank draft of Rs. 2 lakhs was given to respondent No. 2, Shri V.I.K. Sood by Shri Vivek Bhalla, for appointment as a distributor of the respondent No 1, Elgi Auto Engineering Ltd. and the draft was fraudulently encashed by respondent No. 2, Shri V.I.K. Sood, Marketing Director of respondent No. 1. In the PIR the DG had recommended institution of an enquiry into unfair trade practices allegedly adopted by the respondents.

ON the basis of the afresaid PIR a Notice of Enquiry dated the 8th January, 1997 was issued to the respondents. The respondents did not enter appearance but filed a reply to the Notice of Enquiry. However, by virtue of the Commission''s order of 31st March, 1998 it was not treated as a proper reply to the Notice of Enquiry as it was not accompanied by an affidavit and was also not found to be in a proper format and the respondents were given one more opportunity to file an appropriate reply in the proper format failing which ex parte proceedings against them were to be started. In that reply it was clarified by the respondents that two Demand Drafts of Rs. 25,000/- each were sent to the informant/complainant and likewise, the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also to be refunded to him and, therefore, there was no question of adoption of or indulgence in any unfair trade practices by the respondents. It was also mentioned that an FIR had also been lodged by Shri Bhalla about this very matter. Thereafter, inspite of the opportunity given to the respondents, a reply was not filed and accordingly, the respondents were set ex parte. The DG was thereafter, given the liberty to file his list of witnesses and their affidavits of evidence with supporting documents. Consequently, the DG filed an affidvait of evidence but failed to serve its copy to the respondents despite the directions of the Commission and the opportunities given for this purpose. On the last date of hearing one more opportunity was given to the DG on the undertaking given by the learned Advocate on behalf of the DG that copies of the affidavit would be served to the respondents by a recognised mode of service and an affidavit of service would be filed on the next date of hearing.

Today, it transpires that the affidavit of evidence has still not been served to the respondents as according to the DG the respondents are not available at their known address and even the informant on whose complaint the investigation was made into the complaint and an enquiry was instituted has also not been helpful in this behalf. It has been further stated by the learned Advocate that on the basis of the facts brought out in the PIR, a criminal offence appears to have been committed by the respondents and the informant appropriately made a complaint to the police also. It has been further conceded by him that no case of unfair trade pratices by and on behalf of the respondents as has been made out and even though the Notice of Enquiry was issued on the 8th January, 1997 more than three years ago, the enquiry has not made any headway and even the informant is not supporting the allegations. It has been further stated that it transpires that respondent No. 2 ceased to be an employee of respondent No. 1 since 1992 and there was a public notice to this effect which appeared in the Indian Express of the 28th July, 1992. Moreover, as the address of the respondent No. 2 is not known, the Notice of Enquiry could not be served to him. It has also been submited that there are no prospects of the present enquiry making any headway in these circumstances and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the enquiry pending.

KEEPING in view the above submissions of the DG''s Advocate, it appears that for want of correct address of respondent No. 2 and necessary co-operation from the informant, the enquiry cannot be taken to its logical conclusion. It is obvious from the submissions made by the learned Advocate that the allegations in the Notice of Enquiry are not likely to be substantiated and no cease and desist order can be passed unless and until the charge of unfair trade practices by and on behalf of the respondents is established fully and unequivocally. In the premises, the inescapable conclusion is that the enquiry will have to be and is hereby dropped and the Notice of Enquiry is discharged. NOE discharged.