9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 700 - AT - Companies LawPrinciple of Merger - Compensation under Section 53N(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 - aggrieved entity - violation of Section 3(3) of the Act - time limitation - applicant contends the respondents to take a plea that the Compensation Application filed by the Applicant centers around the assumption that Section 53N of the Act requires the existence of either the former Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)/ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal or the Competition Commission of India s order - HELD THAT - It is to be pertinently pointed out that the Section 53N of the Act speaks of Awarding compensation and a mere perusal of the ingredients of the said Section unerringly point out that the said Section does not contemplate a Limitation period for projecting an Application . It is an axiomatic principle in Law that when no time limit is prescribed, based on the Doctrine of Laches the relevant proceedings ought to have been filed within a reasonable period of time and that failure to do so results in serious prejudice and harm to the concerned party and adversely affects the ability of the said party to defend itself. In fact, the Competition Act, 2002 does not either by reference or in comparison provide for any period of Limitation for the purpose of filing an Application before COMPAT to adjudicate a case for compensation arising from the findings of the CCI or from the orders of COMPAT or under Section 42A or 53Q(2). It is not in dispute that the Applicant had sent the Information through letter dated 04.02.2011 under Section 19(1) of the Act to the Hon ble Commission alleging anti-competitive behavior on the part of the three Respondents and another. Further, the Applicant had alleged that the Respondents had acted and resorted in a manner in regard to the tenders released by the Applicant for purchasing Aluminum Phosphate Tablet (ALP) for the period 2009-10 - As a matter of fact, the Hon ble Commission found that the Respondents had cartelised in respect of the two tenders for purchase of ALP Tablets released by the Applicant for the period from 2009-10 and 2011-12 and also it was found out that the Respondent had colluded and fixed the prices for the year 2009 tender and collusively boycotted the 2011 tender, thereby contravening Section 3 of the Act. Undoubtedly, a plea of Limitation cannot be determined as an abstract principle of Law divorced from facts. The question of Limitation is an mixed issue of Fact and Law . In fact, Limitation bars remedy and does not destroy a right . This Tribunal taking into account of all the facts and circumstances of the present case in a conspectus fashion, comes to a resultant conclusion that in the present case, the cause of action firstly arose from the decision of the CCI s order dated 23.04.2012, which was later affirmed by the COMPAT on 29.10.2013 and attained finality - this Tribunal holds that Section 53N of the Competition Act, 2002 entail an Applicant s cause of action to have come into existence because of an order of the Competition Commission of India or the Competition Appellate Tribunal. Further, it cannot be lost sight of that in the instant case, the Competition Commission of India, erstwhile COMPAT and the Hon ble Supreme Court had found that the Respondents had violated the Competition Act. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Compensation Application under Section 53N of the Competition Act, 2002. 2. Limitation period for filing the Compensation Application. 3. Filing of a single Compensation Application against multiple respondents. 4. Payment of requisite fees for filing the Compensation Application. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Compensation Application under Section 53N of the Competition Act, 2002: The Applicant, Food Corporation of India (FCI), filed a Compensation Application under Section 53N of the Competition Act, 2002, claiming compensation for losses due to the anti-competitive behavior of the Respondents. The Respondents contended that the application was not maintainable as the orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) had merged into the judgment of the Supreme Court, invoking the 'Doctrine of Merger.' The Tribunal, however, concluded that Section 53N(1) requires the compensation claim to arise from the findings of the CCI or the Appellate Tribunal, and it does not mandate that the said orders must necessarily subsist in law. The Tribunal held that the Compensation Application was maintainable as the cause of action arose from the findings of the CCI and the COMPAT, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court. 2. Limitation period for filing the Compensation Application: The Respondents argued that the application was time-barred, citing a three-year limitation period from the COMPAT's order dated 29.10.2013. The Tribunal noted that the Competition Act, 2002, does not prescribe a limitation period for filing an application under Section 53N. It observed that the limitation period should be counted from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment on 08.05.2017, and since the application was filed on 11.07.2019, it was within a reasonable period of less than three years. The Tribunal emphasized that the plea of laches could not be put against the Applicant, as the application was filed within a reasonable time frame. 3. Filing of a single Compensation Application against multiple respondents: The Respondents contended that Section 53N of the Act permits filing a compensation application against a single enterprise and not multiple enterprises. The Tribunal, however, noted that the cause of action involved common orders passed by the CCI, COMPAT, and the Supreme Court, and the litigation was common and interlinked. Therefore, it held that the filing of a single application against multiple respondents was not fatal and was maintainable in law. 4. Payment of requisite fees for filing the Compensation Application: The Respondents argued that the Applicant had misled the Tribunal by paying a fee of Rupees three lakhs for a single application instead of paying for each respondent. The Tribunal referred to Rule 4 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Form and Fee for Filing an Appeal and Fee for Filing Compensation Applications) Rules, 2009, which stipulates the fee structure. It directed the Registry to scrutinize the payment of fees and issue a memorandum to the Applicant if there was a deficit, allowing the Applicant to rectify the defect within 14 days. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Compensation Application was maintainable under Section 53N of the Competition Act, 2002, and was filed within a reasonable period. It also held that a single application against multiple respondents was permissible and directed the Registry to examine the payment of fees. The matter was listed for hearing on merits in respect of other issues.
|
