1995 (6) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l have indulged in certain unfair trade practices. Later, during the course of the proceedings in the Commission, the enquiry was converted into a section 36B(d) enquiry which implies that the enquiry has been instituted upon the information and knowledge received by the Commission, the said complaint of Shri Gupta being the source. 2. The complainant, Shri Gupta, in his application to the Commission has stated that the first respondent is engaged in the manufacture trade and import / export of basic drugs and formulations with its plant in Anupgarh in the State of Haryana, that the second respondent Shri Singhal is the original promoter of the company and is presently its Chairman and President, that the respondents without taking the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....complaint as information, the Commission decided to issue a Notice of Enquiry (NOE) under section 36B(d). 4. In consequence of the said decision, a NOE was issued on 6-11-1992, summarising the allegations in the complaint petition and indicating the respondents of having indulged in unfair trade practices, prejudicial to public interest, attracting section 36A(l)(i), (iv) and (vi ) and section 36D of the Act. 5. On receipt of the NOE, the respondent's counsel appeared before this Commission on 5-2-1993 and stated, at the bar, that the reply already filed by the respondents to the original complaint-application of Shri Gupta may be treated as the reply to the NOE. 6. Briefly, the respondent's averments in their reply are that Shri G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the respondents and they are marked exhibits A-l to A-9. After the hearing on 17-11-1993, the respon-dents chose to be absent on all the subsequent hearings and proceedings continued ex parte. The complainant Shri P.K. Gupta was examined. (As the respondents were absent, there was no cross-examination of Shri Gupta). We gave a hearing to Shri S. Gupta, the learned attorney for the DG. 9. The charges in the NOE are essentially based on the document, 'A brief profile' issued by the respondents by way of a prelude to an invitation to prospective investors to subscribe to the equity shares of the company. It is obvious, on a perusal of the said document, that by itself it is neither a prospectus nor an invitation to subscribe to the equ....