DG IANDR NEW DELHI Vs. ELGI AUTO ENGINEERING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present enquiry was instituted on the basis of the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) submitted by the DG. The investigation on the basis of which the PIR was submitted was made on the complaint of Shri Vivek Bhalla. The allegations against the respondents are that a bank draft of Rs.2 lakhs was given to respondent No.2, Shri V. I. K. Sood by Shri Vivek Bhalla, for appointment as a distributor of the respondent No 1, Elgi Auto Engineering Ltd. and the draft was fraudulently encashed by respondent No.2, Shri V. I. K. Sood, Marketing Director of respondent No.1. In the PIR the DG had recommended institution of an enquiry into unfair trade practices allegedly adopted by the respondents.

(2.) On the basis of the afresaid PIR a Notice of Enquiry dated the 8th January, 1997 was issued to the respondents. The respondents did not enter appearance but filed a reply to the Notice of Enquiry. However, by virtue of the Commission's order of 31st March, 1998 it was not treated as a proper reply to the Notice of Enquiry as it was not accompanied by an affidavit and was also not found to be in a proper format and the respondents were given one more opportunity to file an appropriate reply in the proper format failing which ex parte proceedings against them were to be started. In that reply it was clarified by the respondents that two Demand Drafts of Rs.25,000/- each were sent to the informant/complainant and likewise, the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was also to be refunded to him and, therefore, there was no question of adoption of or indulgence in any unfair trade practices by the respondents. It was also mentioned that an FIR had also been lodged by Shri Bhalla about this very matter. Thereafter, inspite of the opportunity given to the respondents, a reply was not filed and accordingly, the respondents were set ex parte.

(3.) The DG was thereafter, given the liberty to file his list of witnesses and their affidavits of evidence with supporting documents. Consequently, the DG filed an affidvait of evidence but failed to serve its copy to the respondents despite the directions of the Commission and the opportunities given for this purpose. On the last date of hearing one more opportunity was given to the DG on the undertaking given by the learned Advocate on behalf of the DG that copies of the affidavit would be served to the respondents by a recognised mode of service and an affidavit of service would be filed on the next date of hearing.