Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (5) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (5) TMI 1067 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Appeal against orders of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and Competition Appellate Tribunal lacking reasons for conclusions.

Summary:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices Surinder Singh Nijjar and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, considered an appeal where the appellants challenged the orders of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal for lacking reasons to support their conclusions. The Court noted that the appellants had raised substantial questions of law before the Commission, but the orders merely treated the matter as a contractual issue between the parties. The Competition Commission and Appellate Tribunal were criticized for not providing reasons for their decisions, which are essential given the significant consequences of their orders. The Court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained due to the lack of reasoning.

The appellants had filed a review application under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which was later required to be heard by the Competition Appellate Tribunal following the enforcement of the Competition Act. The Tribunal dismissed the review petition, essentially reiterating the earlier decision of the Commission. The Court emphasized the importance of reasons in quasi-judicial functions and found the lack of reasons in the impugned orders unacceptable.

The respondent argued that the appellants had willingly entered into a contractual relationship with the respondent-Bank, justifying the decisions of the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal. Additionally, it was contended that the petition was not maintainable under Section 4(2) of the MRTP Act and that the claims were barred by limitation. However, the Court did not delve into the merits of these issues, setting aside the orders solely on the basis of inadequate reasoning. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded back to the Competition Appellate Tribunal for a reconsideration of the entire issue on merits, including the preliminary objections raised by the appellants.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates