9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaking, claim to have a direct interest in the investigation process especially when it only stood in the shoes of an informant. Both Regulations 21 as well as 25 provide an opportunity to parties to address all submissions before the Commission for its consideration. In view of the above, the Court finds that not only would it be open for the petitioner to apply to the Commission in terms of Regulation 25 and to seek a right to address submissions, it could also, if so chosen and advised, address a prayer for being provided a copy of the investigation report or the extracts thereof - the Court finds no justification to issue any peremptory directions except to observe that it would be open to the petitioner to move the Commission under Regulation 25 and to address all issues before the said body. Petition disposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA For the Appellant : Mr. Percival Billimoria, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anu Monga, Mr. Rahul Goel and Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Madhav Gupta and Mr. Vedant Kapur, Advs. for CCI. YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Builders Association of India has approached t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaken by the Director General, and as has been explained in the two decisions aforenoted, is far wider and than that which is undertaken by the Commission. Viewed in the aforesaid context, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the refusal to implead is clearly illegal. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commission, on the other hand, states that the present investigation has been commenced by the Director General pursuant to the Commission itself taking suo moto cognizance of certain issues which had fallen for its notice. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the above, it would be incorrect for the petitioner to contend that it is an informant in the proceedings which are presently pending before the Director General. The Court also takes note of the provisions contained in Section 26(5) of the Competition Act, 2002 as well as Regulation 2(1)(i) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 on the basis of which the petitioner seeks to contend that it would have the right to intervene in the ongoing investigation. The issues which are canvassed would warrant further consideration by the Court. Consequently, list again o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to regulation 2(i) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 2009 Regulations to contend that a trade association as well as an information provider is entitled to be impleaded as a party in proceedings which may be initiated as also to intervene. It was contended that since the entire investigation itself had commenced based upon a complaint which had been made by the petitioner and of which cognizance had been duly taken by the respondents themselves, there existed no justification to deny the petitioner the right to intervene in the proceedings. It was further argued that since the petitioner was only an information provider, its intervention in the proceedings would neither delay nor derail the investigation and in view of the above it was the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the view as taken by the Commission is clearly unjustified and arbitrary. 6. Assailing the order passed by the Commission on a more fundamental ground, Mr. Billimoria submitted that the fundamental principles of natural justice and a right of hearing which an informant could claim under the provisions of the Act and the 2009 Regulations clearly mandate and require a copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be pending before the Commission is a question which must stand reserved for its consideration in the first instance bearing in mind the fact that the Act empowers the Commission to formulate and regulate its own procedure in light of Section 36 of the Act. 9. Mr. Kirpal lastly argued that the petitioner is clearly guilty of having raised the instant challenge with inordinate delay as would be evident from the following facts. It was contended that the proceedings themselves had emanated from the complaints which had been received by the Commission commencing from December 2018. It was pointed out that the direction for an investigation being undertaken by the Director General was framed way back on 01 July 2019. Mr. Kirpal highlighted the fact that the petitioner sought intervention and impleadment in that investigation process for the first time by way of an application which came to be filed on 07 December 2021. That application, as was noticed by above, came to be rejected by the Commission on 29 December 2021. The aforesaid order was ultimately assailed by the petitioner by instituting the present proceedings on 09 April 2022. According to Mr. Kirpal, the aforesaid facts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been justified in taking the stand that the petitioner would not fall within the ambit of the expression parties concerned , stricto sensu, coupled with the stage at which the investigation had reached, no prejudice as such stands caused to the petitioner for the following reasons. 13. The Court takes note of the following provisions as are made in Regulation 25. That provision is extracted herein below: 25. Power of Commission to permit a person or enterprise to take part in proceedings. (1) While considering a matter in an ordinary meeting, the Commission, on an application made to it in writing, if satisfied, that a person or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow such person or enterprise to present his or its opinion on that matter, may permit that person or enterprise to present such opinion and to take part in further proceedings of the matter, as the Commission may specify. (2) The application referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall be accompanied by proof of payment of fees, in accordance with regulation 49. (3) The application referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall contain, (a) lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
