1994 (3) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... two years. One of such advertise-ments published in the Hindustan Times dated 1-11-1990 gave rise to an enquiry UTPE No. 16 of 1991 by the Commission against the company under sections 36A, 36B(d) and 36D of the MRTP Act, 1969. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Commission passed a 'cease and desist' order directing the respondent to immediately stop the practice of issuing such advertisements on a finding that the respondent had indulged in unfair trade practices attracting clauses (iv) and (viii) of section 36A(1). The further finding was that a large number of unsuspect- ing investors are likely to be swayed by the false promises made by the respondent thereby losing their hard earned money. This order was passed recently on 20-1-1994.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 27-2-1993 arrived, the respondent requested the applicant to defer the presentation of the cheque for encashment due to 'prevailing conditions in the country'. The applicant immediately met the director of the company and asked him to get the above cheque cleared as he was in dire need of money. The applicant also requested the respondent at least to get the fixed deposit released as the same had already matured. The reaction of the director was queer. He expressed his inability to do anything of the kind saying that they have 'some arrangement' with the bank in this regard. Assurance was, however, held out that the cheque would be cleared after the Holi festival but it turned out to be completely false. Disgusted with all this, the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oceed ex parte as well as its reply to the allegations made in the compensation application. As neither of these two steps was taken and as no one appeared on behalf of the respondent on the next date, i.e., 3-1-1994 the Commission was constrained to proceed with the case ex parte. 4. In compliance with the Commission's order, the applicant filed his affidavit supported by original documents, including the cheques which had returned uncashed as also the receipt issued by the respondent accepting Rs. 18,000, the agreement executed between the parties as well as the correspondence exchanged between them. There was no rebuttal of the assertions made by the applicant in his compensation application as well as in the affidavit filed in support ....