9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is also no reference in either Section 10 or in Section 36B of the MRTP Act to any of the provisions of Section 12B of the MRTP Act and if the Parliament intended to make Sections 10, 12B and 36B of the MRTP Act interdependent, there would have been some indication of this intention of Parliament in Section 10 or in Section 36B of the MRTP Act - In the absence of any such indication of this intention of Parliament to make the provisions of Section 12B of the MRTP Act dependent on initiation of an inquiry or proceeding under Section 10 or Section 36B of the MRTP Act, the Competition Appellate Tribunal clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that interdependence of the provisions of Section 10 or Section 36B with Section 12B cannot be lost sight of and in the absence of a separate proceeding alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under Section 12B of the MRTP Act is not maintainable. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8920 & 8921 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2012 - A. K. Patnaik And Swatanter Kumar, JJ. JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. The facts very briefly in these two ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition Appellate Tribunal also dismissed C.A. No.126 of 2008 on 26.04.2012 and C.A. No.110 of 1997 on 20.05.2011 filed by the appellants in the Civil Appeals before us. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals. 4. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28463 of 2011, submitted that this Court has not held in Saurabh Prakash v. DLF Universal Ltd. (supra), on which the Competition Appellate Tribunal has placed reliance, that in the absence of any separate proceedings either under Section 10 or Section 36B of the MRTP Act, an application for compensation under Section 12B of the MRTP Act is not maintainable. He submitted that a reading of Section 12B of the MRTP Act rather shows that an independent proceeding under Section 12B of the MRTP Act for compensation can be initiated by an applicant. He relied on the decision in M/s Pennwalt (I) Ltd. Anr. v. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Ors. [AIR 1999 DELHI 23] in which, after examining the provisions of Sections 10, 36B and other provisions of the MRTP Act, the Delhi High Court has held that the proceedings under Section 12B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17380 of 2012, submitted that the jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission is based on a finding of unfair trade practice and such finding can only be recorded under Section 36B of the MRTP Act. She submitted that Section 11 of the MRTP Act empowers the Director General to make an inquiry and there is no mechanism of inquiry in Section 12B of the MRTP Act. She vehemently argued that Section 12B of the MRTP Act, therefore, cannot be read as an independent Code. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that in Saurabh Prakash v. DLF Universal Ltd. (supra) this Court was called upon to decide whether the MRTP Commission had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act when no case of indulgence in unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice was made out and this Court held that the power of the MRTP Commission to award compensation is restricted to a case where loss or damage had been caused as a result of monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice but it had no jurisdiction where damage is claimed for mere breach of contract. In the aforesaid decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, or any State Government or any trader or class or traders or any consumer, such government or, as the case may be, trader or class of traders or consumer may, without prejudice to the right of such government, trader or class of traders or consumer to institute a suit for the recovery of any compensation for the loss or damage so caused, make an application to the Commission for an order for the recovery from that undertaking or owner thereof or, as the case may be, from such person, of such amount as the Commission may determine, as compensation for the loss or damage so caused. (2) Where any loss or damage referred to in sub-section (l) is caused to numerous persons having the same interest, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Commission, make an application, under that sub-section, for and on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the persons so interested, and thereupon the provisions of rule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to the application before the Commission and the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commission may determine, as compensation for the loss or damage so caused. Sub-section (3) of Section 12B of the MRTP Act further provides that the MRTP Commission may, after an inquiry made into the allegations made in the application filed under sub-section (1), make an order directing the owner of the undertaking or other person to make payment, to the applicant, of the amount determined by it as realisable from the undertaking or the owner thereof, or, as case may be, from the other person, as compensation for the loss or damage caused to the applicant by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive, or unfair trade practice carried on by such undertaking or other person. Thus, the MRTP Commission has been vested with the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 12B of the MRTP Act to make an inquiry to the allegations of monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice made in the application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 12B of the MRTP Act and to determine the amount of compensation realizable from the undertaking or the owner thereof, or, as case may be, from the other person, towards loss or damage caused to the applicant by reason of any monopolistic or restrict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
