DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs MARUDHAR SERVICE LIMITED

THE respondent/applicant has filed an application under Section 36D(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act) for quashing the present proceedings against it. It is contended that the respondent/applicant has already tendered unconditional apology which has been accepted by this Commission by order dated 1.10.1987. It is further submitted that the respondent/applicant thereafter did not conduct any business nor circulated any brochure or advertised. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the respondent/applicant''s application may be reproduced as below : "3. That an unconditional apology tendered by the applicant was accepted by this Hon''ble Commission vide order dated 1.10.1987 and this Hon''ble Commission observed as under : ''However, when unconditional apology has been tendered at the earliest opportunity, it is expedient in the interest of justice to give another chance to the respondent Company and its Chairman to obey and not to contravene the orders of the Commission in future. THE apology can be accepted and respondent Company, its Chairman and Officers can be excused. But we cannot ignore that there must have been unnecessary expenditure incurred and time wanted by DG in bringing the application. In the circumstances we accept the apology, drop all further proceedings but direct that the respondent Company and its Chairman shall be liable both jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs which should be paid within one month from today otherwise it will be realised in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code."

That even as per the allegations of the complainant Shri B.K. Sharma, the whole case is based on a brochure which was alleged to have been issued by the applicant Company in March, 1987 and it has been alleged that there has been some misrepresentation which attracted the MRTP Act. It is submitted that the brochure which was alleged to have been received by the complainant on 1.3.1987 was never circulated by the applicant and not a single person has complained to this effect and moreover there is no evidence on record which will show that the applicant in any manner connected in a manner which could be considered to be unfair in trade practice. It is submitted that after tendering the apology as mentioned above dated 1.10.1987 there is no iota of evidence on record which will show that subsequently the applicant indulged in any of the activities which could be considered to be unfair as per the MRTP Act. THE applicant after tendering the said apology never conducted any business nor circulated any brochure or advertisement and even discontinued his business since then. THE applicant has already paid the due amount to the investors and met their demands and also mutated the piece of land in favour of the investors who intended to have the same, therefore, no proceeding is required by this Hon''ble Commission to be continued against the applicant.

That the applicant further undertakes that he never indulged in any unfair trade practice after 1.10.1987 nor he intends to involve himself in such affairs in future and, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice if the proceedings against the applicant are dropped/quashed."

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to continue with the present enquiry and the same are accordingly disposed of. THE Notice of Enquiry stands discharged with no order as to costs. N.O.E. discharged.