2020 (1) TMI 1705 - HC - Law of Competition

Seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal - HELD THAT - The statement of the learned counsel for the appellant/CCI was recorded to the effect that it was ready to furnish all the documents of the investigation available with it to the respondent herein except for those with respect to which a party had claimed confidentiality without it being treated as a precedent. The very same fact had weighed with the learned Single Judge at the time of passing the impugned order on 29.9.2016. In view of the said statement made on behalf of the appellant/CCI duly recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 02.12.2015 there are no merit in the submission made that the order dated 02.12.2015 or for that matter the impugned order dated 29.9.2016 shall have wide ramifications or shall be treated as a precedent in the future. There is no justification to modify the impugned order in the light of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant/CCI on 2.12.2015 as noted in the order dated 2.12.2015. Thus even on merits no case for interference is made out by the appellant/CCI. The application for seeking condonation of delay is dismissed as meritless and as a sequel thereto the appeal and the pending application are also dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The appellant, CCI, filed an appeal against an order dated 29.9.2016, which partly allowed their application for modification of an order dated 02.12.2015. The appeal was filed on 11.1.2017, with a delay of 67 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay, but the court found the explanations unsatisfactory. The delay from 29.9.2016 to 15.11.2016, and subsequent delays, were not adequately explained. The court noted that obtaining a certified copy of the order did not justify the delay, as an exemption could have been sought. The appellant's casual approach in processing the appeal was evident, as it took one and a half months to file the appeal after the Commission's approval on 13.12.2016.

The appellant argued that the appeal raised significant issues with serious consequences. However, the court observed that the previous order, dated 02.12.2015, where the appellant agreed to furnish investigation documents to the respondent, did not merit wide ramifications or set a precedent. The court found no merit in the appellant's submission that the orders would have far-reaching effects. The court highlighted the observations made by the Single Judge in the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments made during the investigation process.

The court declined to modify the impugned order dated 29.9.2016, as the appellant's statement on 02.12.2015 did not warrant interference. The court agreed with the Single Judge's observations and found no justification for modifying the order. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed as meritless, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and pending applications. The court's decision was based on the lack of satisfactory explanations for the delay and the absence of grounds for interference in the impugned order.