9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 81 - HC - Companies LawWhether section 66(6) of the CA was meant to cover only such cases where the DG(I&R) took suo motu notice under section 11(2) of the MRTP Act and investigations were incomplete at the time of the CAA 2009? Held that - If any of the petitioners suffer any prejudice on account of the non-furnishing of any information to them by the CCI, they could well raise such a contention before the CCI which will then deal with such contention and pass orders thereon before proceeding to take any action in terms of section 43, read with section 45 of the CA. In any event, for any alleged violation of the procedure by the CCI it is not as if the petitioners would be without a remedy. Such a situation is taken care of within the four corners of the CA itself. This Court finds no ground having been made out by the petitioners for interdicting the proceedings before the CCI. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to handle the case transferred from the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP Commission). 2. The procedural correctness of transferring the investigation from the MRTP Commission to the CCI. 3. The petitioners' right to access information and documents for filing replies to the CCI's queries. 4. The request for additional time to respond to the CCI's show-cause notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI): The petitioners argued that the CCI had no jurisdiction to deal with RTPE No. 5 of 2009 as it was a matter pending before the MRTP Commission. According to Section 66(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 (CA), all matters pending before the MRTP Commission should be transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT). The court examined Section 66(3) and concluded that only 'cases' pending for 'adjudication' before the MRTP Commission would be transferred to the CAT. Since the investigation by the Director General (Investigation & Registration) [DG(I&R)] was incomplete and had not crystallized into a 'case' before the MRTP Commission, the transfer to the CCI was deemed appropriate under Section 66(6) of the CA. 2. Procedural Correctness of Transferring the Investigation: The court analyzed Section 11 of the MRTP Act and Section 66 of the CA to determine the procedural correctness of transferring the investigation. It was established that the MRTP Commission had directed the DG(I&R) to undertake investigations, and once this direction was given, the matter was no longer pending before the MRTP Commission. The court noted that Section 66(6) of the CA encompasses all investigations or proceedings pending before the DG(I&R) as of the date of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009 (CAA 2009). Therefore, the transfer of the investigation to the CCI was found to be legally sound. 3. Petitioners' Right to Access Information and Documents: The petitioners contended that the CCI acted unreasonably by declining to provide the necessary information and documents required for filing their replies. The court observed that the petitioners could file replies based on the available information and, if prejudiced by the non-furnishing of information, could raise this contention before the CCI. The CCI would then address such contentions before proceeding under Sections 43 and 45 of the CA. The court emphasized that the petitioners were not without a remedy for any procedural violations by the CCI. 4. Request for Additional Time to Respond: The petitioners requested more time to file replies to the CCI's show-cause notice. The court noted that it was within the petitioners' right to request additional time from the CCI, which would consider the request on its merits before taking further action under Sections 43 and 45 of the CA. Conclusion: The court found no grounds to interdict the proceedings before the CCI and dismissed the writ petitions. The petitioners were advised to file their replies within the time granted by the CCI and to raise any issues of prejudice due to non-furnishing of information directly before the CCI. The court also suggested that the petitioners could request additional time from the CCI to respond to the show-cause notice, which the CCI would consider on its merits. The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
