Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: incorrect address in Unknown vs Chemist Association on 23 August, 2023Matching Fragments
64. Now, the Commission shall deal with the objections/suggestions to the Investigation Report of OP-1, OP-2, OP-27 and OP-28 at the same place since it is noted that majority of their objections/suggestions are similar in nature.
65. In the objections/suggestions, the said OPs stated that the Investigation Report is untenable, illegal and non-compliant with the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009. The documents submitted by OP-2, in statement dated 20.06.2022, were not considered by the DG indicating the incorrect address of the Informant submitted by it. It is said that because OP-2 challenged the Informant on its incorrect address, the present Information has been filed to harass the OP-2. In the rejoinder by the Informant, it is stated that it never attempted to conceal change in its registered office from the Commission, and also that it was a licensed manufacturer, distributor and seller of medicine conducting business and operating out of multiple addresses is common to trade. The Commission notes that OP-2 during the recording of statement dated 20.06.2022 and the hearing on 05.07.2023, raised the issue of incorrect address of the Informant. The Commission perused the statement dated 01.12.2021 of Mr. Gaurav Nagpal (Informant), statements dated 20.06.2022 and 21.06.2022 of OP-2, documents annexed along with the objections/suggestions filed by OP-2 and notices dated 07.06.2020. The Commission observes that there is no denial on the part of OP-2 meeting Mr. Gaurav Nagpal and raising the issues of margin scheme and stockist of the Informant's products. Secondly, the reasons as stated in the said notices for boycott of Informant's products are 'margin scheme and stockist'. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that for assessment of conduct of the said OPs under Section 3(3) of the Act the objection to incorrect address of the Informant is irrelevant.