PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION (PSMA) AND MEMBER UNDERTAKINGS vs S. 34 — 2022 CLD 1068 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation: 2022 CLD 1068 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
Year: 2022
Reporter: CLD
Parties: PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION (PSMA) AND MEMBER UNDERTAKINGS vs S. 34
Provisions referred to: S. 34---; Competition Act; Validity---Competition Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION (PSMA) AND MEMBER UNDERTAKINGS VS S. 34--- Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 2(1)(g) & 26A---Power to enter and search premises---Taking of evidence---Scope---Undertakings argued that the Enquiry Committee could only have impounded or taken information from 'computers', hence, the impounding of mobile phones was not in conformity with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2010 and any evidence used therefrom was inadmissible---Validity---Competition Act, 2010 had envisaged smart phones to fall under the term 'computer' and amounted to computer stored information---Regulation 26A(2)(a) of the Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007 specified that the Commission could admit evidence taken in the form of verifiable transcripts of tape recordings, unedited versions of video recording, electronic mail, telephone records including authenticated mobile telephone records---Term 'document' had been defined in Regln. 2(1)(g) of the Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007 as any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by any other means, used or intended to be used for the purpose of recording that matter---Said meaning was of wide import and referred to any material used to record any matter, hence, also included digital forms of documentation such as e-mails, text messages, etc.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

2022 CLD 1051 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIMADINA BREEDING (PVT.) LIMITED VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY S. 1---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Envi…
2022 CLD 626 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHISINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY VS DIAMOND RESIDENCY through Owner/ Chief Executive Officer Ss. 17 & 1---Initial environmental examina…
2022 CLD 502 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIARIF BELGAUMI VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) S. 17---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental…
2022 CLD 233 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIRAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Ss. 11, 13 & 14---Prohibition o…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED S. 5(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963 [since repe…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss. 6, 8(a) & 10(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English