9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Law) (CCI) Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Mr. Philomon Kani, Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Ms. Simrat Kaur Sareen, Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Advocates for CCI. ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Arun Baroka, Member ( Technical ) ] This is an Interlocutory Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking waiving off the payment of Court fees in refiling the Compensation Application against the order of the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as "CCI") dated 17.03.2017 in No. 50 of 2014. Mr. Prem Prakash is the Sole Proprietor of Venus Testing and Research Laboratory ("Applicant"), who had filed Compensation Appeal No. 01 of 2022 (earlier application) arising out of the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Competition Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 was dismissed as withdrawn. It is claimed by the Appellant that it was under the bona-fide belief that Mr. Sumit Jain is an Advocate and holds a license to practice, engaged him as his authorised counsel to present his case before the NCLAT. Mr. Sumit Jain was also engaged in other matters in this Tribunal as well as in Competition Commission of India. It is only from the order dated 22.07.2022 in Competition Appeal (AT) No. 27 of 2022 that it came to know that Mr. Sumit Jain had accepted during the hearing that he is neither an advocate nor Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary or Cost Accountant. And during this hearing since Mr. Sumit Jain knew the fate of all other Appeals, he withdrew the Compensation Application No. 01 of 2022 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desh PWD department has not accredited his lab on the ground that it has not been accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). The Appellant claims that there are more than 100 accreditation bodies throughout the world and three accreditation bodies in India. However, such orders by which accreditation is being done by single accreditation body i.e. NABL is arbitrary, unreasonable and adversely affect the competition in the relevant market. The CCI vide its order dated 17.03.2017, held that the imposition of the above condition by MPPWD & CPWD was in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act. CPWD has modified the conditions since then. Also MPPWD has deve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Tribunal to take appropriate steps as per law against Mr. Sumit Jain. Competition Appeal (AT) No. 12 of 2021 was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2022 and the Registrar of this Hon'ble Tribunal was directed to take appropriate legal steps against Mr. Sumit Jain. 6. The 1st Respondent / CCI submits that as per Rule 4(2) of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Form and Fee for filing Competition Applications) Rules, 2009, every compensation application shall be accompanied by a fee with a maximum fee of Rs.3 lakhs. The amount demanded by the 'Registry' of this 'Tribunal', is in accordance with these 'Rules'. 7. Further, the 'Appellant', cannot rely on the case of Rafiq & Anr. (supra) as quoted by them as the case was dismissed for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ...." [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 9. The above-mentioned Rule provides for waiving the fee, taking into consideration the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the Appellant. Herein, it is claimed that the "Advocate" was not really an Advocate and he withdrew the Compensation Application without the instructions from the Appellant. Also relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq & Anr. (supra) and also of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sohanlalarya (supra) it is claimed that his 'fee', may be waived for filing the 'Appeal'. 10. In the first judgment of Rafiq & Anr. (supra) relied upon by the Appellant, it is noted that there was an ex-parte order of dismissal of `Appeal', which was passed by the Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not aware of the fact that Mr. Sumit Jain, was not an 'Advocate' or 'Chartered Accountant', 'Company Secretary' or 'Cost Accountant', and he withdrew the 'Compensation Application', without instructions of the 'Appellant', 'waiver of fee', in re-filing the 'Compensation Application', has to be justified, as per the 'Rule 4(3) of the Competition Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2009', which provides for 'waiver', after taking into consideration the 'economic condition' or 'indigent circumstances' of the Appellant. Having gone through the Appellant's submissions, this 'Tribunal', does not find any such 'economic condition' or 'indigent circumstances', which justifies the 'waiver of the fee'. Therefore, the 'Fee for Re-filing the Compensation Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
