The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has rejected the appeal filed by Kingdom Valley Pvt Ltd, allowing the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) to proceed with the enforcement of its penalty.
Following the Commission’s decision, the CCP had attached the company’s bank accounts and recovered Rs27 million. The CAT further directed Kingdom Valley to deposit 50 per cent of the total penalty, amounting to Rs75 million, and to submit post-dated cheques for the remaining penalty amount to the CCP.
In its order, the Tribunal observed that a prima facie violation of the Competition Act, 2010 was established, and therefore, a stay could not be granted without the mandatory deposit of half of the imposed penalty.
The CCP had imposed a Rs150 million penalty on Kingdom Valley Pvt Ltd for deceptive and misleading marketing practices, including falsely advertising the project as being located in Islamabad while it is situated in Mouza Choora, Rawalpindi, misrepresenting links with the Naya Pakistan Housing Programme, and making false claims of NOC approval without proper disclosure.
Earlier, the company had challenged the CCP’s decision before the Islamabad High Court (IHC). In November 2025, the IHC dismissed the petition and referred the matter to the CAT. The appeal is currently pending before the Tribunal without any stay order.
In a separate case, the CAT directed United Distributors (UDPL) and International Brands Limited (IBL) to submit a bank guarantee of Rs 20 million (50 per cent of the penalty) along with post-dated cheques for the remaining 50 per cent to obtain a stay against recovery proceedings initiated by the CCP.
The case relates to penalties of Rs40 million imposed by the CCP on UDPL and IBL for entering into an illegal and anti-competitive non-compete agreement, in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act 2010. According to the CCP, IBL paid over Rs1.13 billion to UDPL to stay out of the human pharmaceutical distribution market for three years.
The CCP ruled that the arrangement amounted to market sharing, which restricted competition, blocked market entry, and harmed consumers. The Commission also noted that the agreement was implemented without obtaining mandatory approval from the CCP, in violation of the Competition Act, 2010.
