TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Respondents found guilty of unfair trade practices, ordered to pay compensation and costs.</h1> <h3>KS. Nagesha Versus Sudha Investments</h3> The Commission found the respondents engaged in unfair trade practices, misleading the public and prejudicing investors' interests. The applicant was ... Unfair trade practice Issues: Application for refund of initial deposit under Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969Analysis:1. The applicant sought a refund of the initial deposit of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 1,200 paid to two respondents under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The applicant alleged that one respondent mounted a scheme promising profits to clients within a short period without liability for losses. The applicant, impressed by the scheme, deposited Rs. 10,000 and requested a post-dated cheque as per the circular.2. Notices were issued to both respondents, but they were absent during the hearing. The Commission proceeded ex parte against the respondents. The applicant filed an affidavit stating that he received back the initial deposit of Rs. 10,000 but sought a refund of the non-refundable Rs. 1,200 as the scheme was of no use to him. The applicant submitted documents supporting his claims, including circulars and correspondence with the respondents.3. The Commission found that the respondents failed to fulfill their promises as per the scheme, substantiated by evidence of non-receipt of accounts, dishonored cheques, and apologies from the respondents. It concluded that the respondents engaged in unfair trade practices, misleading the public and prejudicing investors' interests, violating section 36A(1)(vi) of the Act.4. The Commission acknowledged the unauthorised retention of the initial deposit and awarded the applicant Rs. 3,900 under section 12B, along with 18% interest on the Rs. 10,000 from the date of possession to the date of refund. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on respondent No. 2. The respondent was directed to pay the awarded amount within six weeks, failing which enforcement through court processes was permitted.5. The application for refund of the initial deposit was thus disposed of, granting relief to the applicant and penalizing the respondent for unfair trade practices and unauthorized retention of funds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
