2011 (1) TMI 1197 - HC - Companies Law

Non-supply of documents forming part of the ADG s investigation report Held that - It is directed that upon the documents being provided to the Petitioners on or before 7-1-2011, the Petitioners will be granted two weeks time thereafter to file their objections to the ADG s Investigation Report. In other words, the objections will be filed on or before 21-1-2011. The CCI will reschedule the hearing fixed for 6-1-2011 to 14-2-2011 or any other date as soon thereafter as may be convenient to the CCI. In view of the need for the proceedings before the CCI to be concluded expeditiously, as mandated by the SAIL s case (2010 (9) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), it is directed that the said time schedule should be strictly adhered to by the parties. With the above directions the writ petitions are disposed of. The pending applications are also disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under sections 26(1) and 33 of the Competition Act, 2002, and a further inquiry order; Quashing of investigation report dated 13-10-2010; Jurisdictional issues raised by the Petitioners; Non-supply of documents to the Petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions challenged the CCI's orders under sections 26(1) and 33 of the Competition Act, 2002, and a further inquiry order. The Petitioners sought quashing of the investigation report dated 13-10-2010 and raised jurisdictional issues. They also requested the CCI to decide on jurisdictional issues as a preliminary objection and not proceed with the inquiry until all documents are supplied.

2. Regarding the order passed by the CCI under section 26(1) of the Act, the Petitioners contended that it lacked sufficient reasons for initiating an inquiry against them. The CCI argued that the reasons for forming a prima facie opinion under section 26(1) were of a lesser degree than those required for an order under section 33. The Court found the reasons in the CCI's order consistent with legal requirements, negating the challenge.

3. The CCI's order under section 33 was also challenged. However, since an appeal was pending before the Competition Appellate Tribunal, the Court did not consider this aspect. The CCI's order addressed the Petitioners' preliminary objections on jurisdiction, which would be dealt with in the pending appeal.

4. The order dated 2-12-2010 was contested by the Petitioners, alleging non-compliance with regulations. The CCI had sent the investigation report to the Petitioners for objections, in line with regulations. The Court found no issue with the communication and stated that objections would be considered at a later hearing if a further inquiry was deemed necessary.

5. The Petitioners also raised concerns about the non-supply of documents from the ADG's investigation report. The CCI assured that copies of all required documents would be provided upon depositing charges. The Court directed the CCI to provide the documents by a specified date and granted time for the Petitioners to file objections.

6. The Court issued directions for the timely filing of objections and rescheduled the hearing date to ensure expeditious proceedings. The parties were instructed to adhere strictly to the set timeline. With these directives, the writ petitions were disposed of, and pending applications were also resolved.