9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 754 - AT - Law of CompetitionCondonation of delay in filing appeal - whether period of 730 days including 693 days spent by the Appellant- Informant in seeking remedy before the Hon ble High Court qua the order impugned dated 28th November 2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India u/s 26(2) of the Competition Act 2002 can be condoned? HELD THAT - While the Appellant seeks condonation of delay on grounds which are not severable from the merits of the case it is apt to notice that no reason much less a cogent lawful reason/ excuse has been assigned for a delay of around two years in preferring the statutory appeal under Section 53B of the Act. The Appellant appearing in person filed written submission in support of his oral arguments reiterating the same grounds as were urged in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals before the Hon ble High Court. It is canvassed that the Appellant spent 693 days in proceedings before the Hon ble High Court since there was denial of natural justice by Commission. He continued to lay stress on the proposition that Writ Jurisdiction can be invoked even when alternate remedy is available if there was denial of natural justice and the impugned order was obtained by fraud. It is indisputable that competition concerns raised with regard to all anti- competitive activities in whatever form or manifestation are effectively dealt with under the Act which provides an efficacious remedy in the form of statutory appeal under Section 53B of the Act. It being the admitted position that efficacious legal remedy in the form of appeal is available within the adjudicatory mechanism under the Act an unscrupulous litigant aggrieved of any order direction and decision of the Commission under the Act cannot be allowed to choose the remedies under law and invoke writ jurisdiction of the Hon ble High Court under the pretext of the impugned order being non est and emanating out of an inquiry investigation or trial held in breach of the principles of natural justice. Such course if permitted would provide leverage to unscrupulous litigants to go for forum shopping. Such practice has to be deprecated. Having regard to the legislative intent behind the enactment of Act the provisions of Limitation Act 1963 stand excluded by necessary implication. Thus it is not open to Appellant to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 providing for extension of period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act 1963 which has no application to appeal in hand. Conclusion - The appellant s appeal was barred by limitation due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The sole issue considered in this judgment was whether the period of 730 days, including 693 days spent by the Appellant in seeking remedy before the High Court regarding the order dated 28th November 2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, could be condoned. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework revolves around Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002, which provides for an appeal against orders passed by the CCI. The section specifies a limitation period of 60 days for filing an appeal, extendable if sufficient cause for delay is demonstrated. The judgment also references the Limitation Act, 1963, although it concludes that the Limitation Act does not apply to this context due to the special limitation prescribed under the Competition Act. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The court emphasized that the prescribed limitation period under the Competition Act is intended to ensure expeditious disposal of competition-related matters. The court interpreted the legislative intent as excluding the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, by necessary implication, thereby focusing on the special limitation period provided under the Competition Act. Key Evidence and Findings The court noted that the Appellant had initially filed writ petitions in the High Court, which were dismissed on the grounds that an efficacious remedy was available under the Competition Act. Despite this, the Appellant pursued writ appeals and even approached the Supreme Court, ultimately withdrawing the review petition. The court found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Application of Law to Facts The court applied the provisions of Section 53B of the Competition Act, emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause to condone the delay. It found that the Appellant's conduct, including the pursuit of remedies in the High Court despite being advised of the statutory appeal option, did not constitute a sufficient cause for the delay. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Appellant argued that the order was obtained by fraud and was non est, justifying the delay. However, the court found no cogent reason or lawful excuse for the delay, noting that the Appellant's arguments were not severable from the merits of the case. Conclusions The court concluded that the Appellant failed to establish a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "We are, therefore, of the considered view that having regard to the legislative intent behind the enactment of Act, the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 stand excluded by necessary implication." Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue The court determined that the Appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
|
