2006 (8) TMI 315 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the affidavit of evidence.
2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of documents referred to in the cross-examination.
3. Procedure for determining the admissibility of evidence.
4. Allegations of delaying tactics by the petitioner.
5. Request for time-bound disposal of the enquiry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the affidavit of evidence:
The petitioner challenged the admissibility of the affidavit of evidence filed by the complainants on the grounds that the verification of the affidavit was not in accordance with Order 19 Rule 3 of CPC, and that the originals of certain documents were not tendered along with the affidavit, rendering it hearsay and inadmissible. The MRTP Commission rejected this application, stating that the procedure outlined in Regulation 68 required admission and denial of documents by the parties before the designated officer of the MRTP Commission. The Commission held that admissibility would be considered during the cross-examination of the complainant's witness and that the application was premature.

2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of documents referred to in the cross-examination:
During the cross-examination of the complainant's witness, the petitioner raised objections regarding the admissibility of certain documents, including an unsigned Minute dated 5-7-2000. The MRTP Commission recorded the objections and stated that the admissibility and evidentiary value of the documents would be considered at the final hearing, in light of the answers given by the witness during cross-examination.

3. Procedure for determining the admissibility of evidence:
The petitioner argued that the MRTP Commission was bound to decide the preliminary issue of admissibility of evidence before proceeding with the enquiry. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple to support their contention. However, the MRTP Commission and the High Court held that the question of admissibility could be considered after the cross-examination of the witnesses. The High Court emphasized that the presiding officer has the discretion to decide the timing of ruling on the admissibility of evidence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Allegations of delaying tactics by the petitioner:
The complainants accused the petitioner and other cement companies of delaying the proceedings by repeatedly raising objections regarding the admissibility of evidence. The cross-examination of the complainant's witness had been prolonged for over 17 months. The High Court noted that the extensive cross-examination would have addressed the veracity of the complainant's evidence and found no justification to interfere with the MRTP Commission's orders.

5. Request for time-bound disposal of the enquiry:
Respondent No. 5's counsel assured the court of their cooperation in the expeditious disposal of the enquiry and requested a time-bound completion. The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, requested the MRTP Commission to complete the enquiry within six months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the MRTP Commission's decision to consider the admissibility of evidence during the final hearing and dismissed the writ petition. The court emphasized the need for a flexible approach in determining the admissibility of evidence and requested the MRTP Commission to expedite the enquiry process.