2014 (1) TMI 1954 - HC - Companies Law

Jurisdiction of respondent No. 1-Competition Commission of India, to investigate the action of the petitioner inasmuch as the Patent Act itself provides adequate mechanism to balance the rights of patentee and other stakeholders - Section 3(5)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - This Court is prima facie of the view that a substantial question of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to entertain respondent No. 2 s petition arises in the present proceedings. Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 12th November, 2013, this Court is also prima facie of the view that the Commission has entered into an adjudicatory and determinative process by recording detailed and substantial reasoning at the Section 26(1) stage itself. In fact, by virtue of the impugned order, this Court is prima facie of the view that the petitioner s remedy under Section 26(7) has been rendered illusory. This Court is also prima facie of the view that by virtue of the impugned order an investigation has been ordered into consent terms which had been approved by this Court by order dated 19th March, 2013 in CS(OS) 442/2013 - Consequently, till the next date of hearing while the petitioner may give information as called upon by the Director General of Competition Commission of India, no final order/report shall be passed either by the Competition Commission of India or by its Director General. List the matter before Joint Registrar on 26th May, 2014 for completion of pleadings.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India, Prima facie view on impugned order, Investigation into consent terms

The High Court heard arguments challenging an order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The petitioner argued that the CCI lacked jurisdiction as the Patent Act already provided mechanisms for patent-related issues. The petitioner also contended that the direction in the impugned order differed from the certified copy. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 argued that the CCI's order was administrative and challengeable. The Court noted that a substantial question of jurisdiction arose and observed that the CCI had entered an adjudicatory process prematurely. The Court found that the CCI's order rendered the petitioner's remedy under Section 26(7) illusory and ordered no final report be passed until the next hearing. The Court allowed the Director General to call local officers for investigation but required specific leave to call officers abroad. The Court clarified that CCI's observations should not hinder negotiations or court proceedings. The matter was listed for completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar.

The Court considered the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in a case challenging an order passed by the CCI. The petitioner argued that the CCI lacked jurisdiction as the Patent Act provided adequate mechanisms for patent-related issues. The petitioner also raised concerns about discrepancies in the direction of the impugned order. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 argued that the CCI's order was administrative and could be challenged. The Court noted a substantial question of jurisdiction regarding the CCI's authority to entertain the petition. The Court observed that the CCI had engaged in an adjudicatory process prematurely and that the petitioner's remedy under Section 26(7) appeared illusory due to the impugned order. The Court directed that no final order or report be issued by the CCI or its Director General until the next hearing. The Director General was permitted to investigate by calling local officers, subject to specific leave for calling officers stationed abroad. The Court clarified that CCI's observations should not obstruct negotiations or court proceedings. The matter was scheduled for pleadings completion before the Joint Registrar.

The High Court examined the issue of jurisdiction concerning the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in a case challenging an order issued by the CCI. The petitioner argued that the CCI lacked jurisdiction as the Patent Act already provided mechanisms to address patent-related matters. The petitioner also highlighted discrepancies in the direction of the impugned order. Conversely, respondent No. 2 contended that the CCI's order was administrative and open to challenge. The Court acknowledged a significant jurisdictional question regarding the CCI's authority to handle the petition. The Court noted that the CCI had prematurely entered an adjudicatory process and that the petitioner's recourse under Section 26(7) seemed illusory due to the impugned order. The Court directed that no final order or report be issued by the CCI or its Director General until the next hearing. The Director General could conduct investigations by summoning local officers, with specific permission required for officers stationed abroad. The Court clarified that CCI's findings should not impede negotiations or ongoing court proceedings. The case was set for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar.

← Previous Next →