Page 64 - Corporate_Professional_Today

Weekly reVieW
CCI imposes penalty on Chemists
and Druggists Association of Baroda
for anti-competitive practices
Reliance Agency v. Chemists & Druggists
Association of Baroda (CDAB), Baroda [2018]
89 taxmann.com 31 (CCI)
Where Opposite Parties (OPs), i.e., Chemists
and Druggists Association of Baroda(CDAB)
and Federation of Gujarat State Chemists and
Druggists Association were mandating NOC
prior to appointment of stockists and insisting
on payment of PIS (Product Information
Service) charges prior to introduction of
new products in market by pharmaceutical
companies, resulting in limiting and controlling
supply of products/medicines in Gujarat, such
practices were anti-competitive in terms of
provisions of section 3, hence, OPs, along with
their office bearers, were to be directed to
immediately cease and desist from indulging
in such practices and penalty was to be
imposed upon them.
Delay in filing certificate from audi-
tor to be condoned as registry failed
to communicate its order in time:
NCLT
Kashi Vishwanath Steels (P.) Ltd., In re
[2017] 88 taxmann.com 311 (NCLT - New
Delhi) (SB)
Where Registry failed to communicate in
time order directing filing of certificates from
statutory auditors of petitioner-companies in
respect of accounting treatment of proposed
scheme of arrangement, application seeking
condonation of delay for placing such certificates
was to be allowed.
NCLAT upholds order of tribunal of
rejecting interlocutory application
amendment in company petition
January 20 To January 26, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 65
Ashok Mittal v. Uniworth Resorts Ltd. [2017]
88 taxmann.com 312 (NCL-AT)
Where NCLT rejected interlocutory applications
(IA) of appellant for impleadment and amendment
in company petition filed under section 397
by recording reasons, there was no fault in
such order of NCLT.
Order of refund by Judge was jus-
tified as there was no substantial
ground to avoid refund
Vision Millennium Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Stride
Multitrade (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com
314 (Mad.)
Where on appellant’s failure to supply soyabean
meal, it was to refund advance money received
for same, since appellant failed to produce
cogent material which was fulcrum of its
defence and had not raised any substantial or
genuine ground to avoid refund, impugned
order of single judge with directions to
appellant to refund advance was justified.
Attachment order of land wouldn’t
survive as it was purchased with
own funds prior to grant of loan
Smt. Nasreen Taj v. Deputy Director Directorate
of Enforcement [2017] 88 taxmann.com 287
((PMLA-AT), NEW DELHI)
Where on borrower’s failure to repay Farm
Development Loans, provisional order for
attachment of land was passed, since land was
purchased prior to grant of loan, attachment
order of land would not survive.
Statutory Changes
SEBI has amended norms for
schemes of arrangement by listed
entities
171