9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
1994 (6) TMI 136 - Commission - Companies Law
Issues: Application for refund of initial deposit under Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
Analysis: 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.
|
