9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 297 - AT - Companies LawTermination of Contract - Appellant claimed that it had taken orders for supply of KAMCO products from the farmers but KAMCO failed to supply the machinery and it suffered losses - HELD THAT - Reasoning of CCI appears to be well founded. It appears to be a dispute between manufacturer and authorised dealer which is tried to be converted into a competition case. The CCI has already considered the table which is being relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and has come to the conclusion that there is no abusive conduct established. No dominance as such has been found. The Ld. CCI has rightly referred to the agreement which is at Page 49 of this Appeal, which includes termination clause - It appears to be a contractual dispute between the parties which is being tried to be converted into a competition case. We do not find that it is a case made out for interference under the Competition Act, 2002. Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal due to Covid-19 surge, Competition Appeal under Section 53 B of Competition Act, 2002, Allegations of abuse of dominant position by the Respondent, Consideration of dealership agreement and market share by CCI, Dispute between manufacturer and authorized dealer.
Delay in filing the appeal due to Covid-19 surge: The Appellate Tribunal considered the delay in filing the appeal due to the Covid-19 surge. The Application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the delay was condoned. Competition Appeal under Section 53 B of Competition Act, 2002: The Appellant filed an appeal against the impugned Order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 53 B of the Competition Act, 2002. The appeal was related to a case where the Appellant claimed to be an authorized dealer of a company and alleged abuse of dominant position by the company. Allegations of abuse of dominant position by the Respondent: The Appellant alleged that the Respondent, a company, abused its dominant position by not supplying goods to the Appellant despite being the authorized dealer. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent appointed new dealers in violation of their dealership agreement, causing losses to the Appellant. Consideration of dealership agreement and market share by CCI: The CCI considered the dealership agreement between the parties and the market share of the Respondent. The CCI analyzed the agreement clauses and market dynamics to determine if any anti-competitive behavior or abuse of dominance existed. The CCI concluded that no abusive conduct or dominance was established based on the evidence and facts presented. Dispute between manufacturer and authorized dealer: The Appellate Tribunal observed that the dispute between the manufacturer and the authorized dealer seemed to be a contractual issue rather than a competition case. The Tribunal agreed with the CCI's reasoning that the matter did not warrant further investigation under the Competition Act, 2002. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that it appeared to be a contractual dispute rather than a competition law issue. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission, finding no substance in the appeal. The Compensation Application was also disposed of as not surviving. The Tribunal upheld the CCI's decision, emphasizing that the matter appeared to be a contractual dispute between the manufacturer and the authorized dealer, rather than a competition law violation.
|
