D K SOOD Vs. SULTANJEE ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The difference of opinion between two Members with respect to both the unfair trade practice and the compensation application has necessitated me to give my opinion on both the issues.

(2.) It appears that a Notice of Enquiry for indulgence in unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent came to be issued on 24th February, 1989 pursuant to the docket order passed by the Division Bench of this Commission on 7th February, 1989 in this case. By an interim order simultaneously passed on that day in that very order, the respondent was restrained from continuing with tall and false claims in its publicity campaign with regard to securing jobs abroad for doctors and others.

(3.) It would be quite proper to look at in a nutshell the facts giving rise to the proceeding against the respondent. Pursuant to one advertisement issued in the Hindustan Times of 7th May, 1988 announcing vacancies of doctors at Yemen Arab Republic, one Dr. Sood and his wife (the informants for convenience) appear to have approached the respondent. It may be mentioned at this stage that the respondent has obtained registration to function as a recruiting agent for the purposes of the Emigration Act, 1983 (the Emigration Act for brief ). He had issued the advertisement in question. It appears that both the informants were doctors and were willing to accept the respective assignment at Yemen A. R. It appears that their bio-data were sent to one Sheikh Yahya Alkomati (the Sheikh for convenience ). He requisitioned inter alia services of such doctors for his Alkomati Clinic (the Clinic for convenience) in Yemen A. R. Thereupon separate agreements were entered into between the informants on the one hand and the Sheikh on the other regarding their services at the clinic in Yemen A. R. It appears that the original agreements were in Arabic. Their authentic English translations are on record at pages 138 and 139 of the Paper Book. It appears that the doctor couple did not find working conditions in the clinic to be quite congenial. They, therefore, returned to India some time in November, 1988 within nearly two months from reaching at Yemen A. R. They thought they were duped by the respondent. They lodged the complaint with the police against the respondent persuemably for cheating. They also moved the Protector General of Emigrants under the Emigration Act voicing their grievances against the respondent inter alia for charging more than the prescribed fees in contravention of the terms and conditions to the Certificate of Registration. They also moved this Commission on 25th January, 1989 by means of a complaint charging the respondent with adoption of unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief ). They simultaneously moved an application under Sec.12a thereof for some interim relief. They also simultaneously moved this Commission with a compensation application under Sec.12b thereof for the total compensation in the sum of Rs.88,440/- from the respondent. Pursuant thereto a Notice of Enquiry was ordered to be issued by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Commission on 7th February, 1989 as aforesaid.