9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y providing for an appeal to an appropriate forum - A party to the lis is not in any manner prejudicially affected on such an additional right being granted to him while repealing an enactment. Applicability of Provisions of Competition Act - Compensation under Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Loss and Damage caused because of monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice – Held that:- Relying upon Nathoo Lal Vs. Durga Prasad [1954 (4) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT] – The orders came to be passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal much after the MRTP Act had been repealed and the Competition Act had been notified - despite the fact that the original application was filed under the provisions of Section 12B of the MRTP Act and in view of the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Competition Act as also Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the petitions had to be decided in terms of the provisions of the MRTP Act, an appeal against the order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, after coming into force of the Competition Act would be maintainable - The appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act is provided against any decision or order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pealed Act) shall stand dissolved: (1A)The repeal of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) shall, however, not affect,- . . . . . (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so repealed; or . . . . . (d) any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, confiscation or punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, confiscation or punishment may be imposed or made as if that Act had not been repealed.] [Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that all cases referred to in this sub-section, sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) shall be deemed to include all applications made for the losses or damages under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) as it stood before its repeal.] . . . . . (3)All cases pertaining to monopolistic trade practices or restrictive trade practices pending (including such cases, in which any unfair trade practice has also been alleged), before the Monopolies an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the rights and obligations of the parties including the right to file an appeal, if any, get crystallized on the date the original petition is filed and since in the cases before this Court, the petitions under Section 12B were filed under the MRTP Act, the Competition Act came into force much later and no appeal against an order under Section 12B of the Act was provided in the MRTP Act, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court is not available to them. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents contended that though the right to appeal is a substantive right to be conferred by a statute, such a right can certainly be conferred under the provisions of the repealing Act, even if it is not available under the repealed Act. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that though a substantive right which accrued to a person under the repealed Act cannot be taken away there is no legal bar on conferring an additional right such as right to file an appeal, by making an appropriate provision in this regard in the repealing Act. 5. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had become final as no appeal lay from it and, therefore, the appeal before the Supreme Court was incompetent. The contention, however, was rejected by the Apex Court noticing that the order under appeal was passed by the Rajasthan High Court after coming into force the Constitution of India and, therefore, the provisions of Article 133 were attracted to it and it was appealable to the Apex Court subject to fulfillment of other requirements of the said Article. It was further held that the Code of Civil Procedure of the Jaipur State could not determine the jurisdiction of the Apex Court and had no relevance to the maintainability of the appeal. Thus, despite the fact that no appeal against the order passed by the Jaipur High Court was available at the time lis before the said High Court was instituted, the Apex Court, considering that the order impugned before it had been passed after coming into force of the Constitution, upheld the right of appeal conferred under Article 133 of the Constitution. In the case before this Court also the impugned orders came to be passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal much after the MRTP Act had been repealed and the Competition Act had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent the statutory procedure. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of the extraordinary situations, for instance, where the very vires of the statute in question or vindication of public justice is required, that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors (2001) 6 SCC 569, Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, noticing that the order passed by the Tribunal was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debut Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In a recent decision in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Sri Ikbal and Ors. 2013(10) SCALE 396, Supreme Court, noticing that against the action of the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower had a remedy of appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also noticing that the borrower did not avail of that remedy and further remedies from that order and approached the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, set aside the order of the learned Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
