2018 (1) TMI 1756 - AT - Law of Competition

Maintainability of review application - error apparent on the face of record or not - existence of an anti-competitive arrangement between M/s Lupin Ltd and Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association - HELD THAT - The Commission on perusal of the records has come to a definite conclusion that there was anti-competitive arrangement/understanding between M/s Lupin Ltd and Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association. While holding so the Commission further held that one Mr. K.E. Prakash President - Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association was also actively involved in anti-competitive conduct carried by Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association. As admittedly finding of the Commission with regard to anti-competitive agreement was reached between M/s Lupin Ltd and Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association has been held to be incorrect by the COMPAT this Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal preferred by Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association is also covered by the decision of COMPAT. Rest of the parties being erstwhile president of Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association and M/s Lupin Ltd the question of anti-competitive practices in absence of curtail between M/s Lupin Ltd and the Karnataka Chemists Druggists Association cannot be accepted. There is no error apparent on the face of the records and that no new fact has been brought to our notice the review application is not maintainable. The review application is dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Competition Commission of India (the "Commission") was correct in its finding of an anti-competitive arrangement between M/s Lupin Ltd and the Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association.
Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) should uphold or review its previous decision in light of the judgment passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the records that warrants a review of the judgment dated 20.09.2017.
Whether the review application is maintainable given the pending appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Anti-competitive Arrangement

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolves around Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements. The Commission had previously found an anti-competitive arrangement between M/s Lupin Ltd and the Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Appellate Tribunal noted that the COMPAT had set aside the Commission's findings of an anti-competitive arrangement. The Tribunal observed that the COMPAT's decision indicated that the appellants were victims of internal rivalry within the Association.
Key evidence and findings: The Commission's order dated 28.07.2016 concluded that there was an anti-competitive arrangement. However, COMPAT's judgment dated 07.12.2016 overturned this finding, which was crucial in the Tribunal's decision-making process.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the COMPAT's interpretation, which found no substantial evidence of an anti-competitive arrangement, thus covering the present appeal under the same decision.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Commission argued that the Tribunal failed to notice specific anti-competitive arrangements. However, the Tribunal held that these arguments were already addressed by the COMPAT's decision.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was covered by the COMPAT's decision, and therefore, no further adjudication was necessary on this issue.

Issue 2: Review of the Previous Decision

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The review was sought under Section 53O(2)(f) of the Competition Act, which allows for review of Tribunal decisions under specific circumstances.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record that would justify a review of its previous decision.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that no new facts were presented that would alter the outcome of the previous judgment.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal standard for review and determined that the conditions for review were not met.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Commission's arguments for review were found insufficient as they did not introduce new evidence or highlight any legal error.
Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the review application, affirming its previous decision.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the Review Application

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The maintainability of a review application is contingent on the presence of new evidence or a clear error in the original decision.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that since the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court, the review application was not maintainable.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found no new evidence or legal errors that would necessitate a review.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the standard for maintainability and found the review application lacking.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the Commission's arguments but found them unpersuasive in altering the maintainability decision.
Conclusions: The review application was dismissed as not maintainable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "As we find there is no error apparent on the face of the records and that no new fact has been brought to our notice, we hold that the review application is not maintainable."
Core principles established: The Tribunal confirmed that a review application must present new evidence or demonstrate a clear error in the original decision to be maintainable. Additionally, decisions by higher appellate bodies, such as the COMPAT, are binding unless overturned.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the review application, upheld the COMPAT's decision, and determined that the matter is subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court appeal.

← Previous Next →