Concurrent compensation and civil suits are maintainable where statute preserves both remedies and provides set-off against double recovery.

An application for compensation under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 remained maintainable despite pending civil suits arising from the same transaction, because the statute expressly preserved civil remedies and contemplated parallel proceedings. Section 12B(1) allowed a compensation claim alongside a civil suit, while section 12B(4) provided for set-off of amounts recovered under the Commission's order against any decree, showing a legislative scheme to prevent double recovery rather than bar concurrent actions. Regulation 77 likewise required disclosure of amounts received in relation to the claim. The doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because the available remedies were cumulative and the Act operated in addition to other laws.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for compensation under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is maintainable when civil suits on the same transaction are already pending, and whether the doctrine of election of remedies bars such parallel proceedings.

Analysis: Section 12B(1) expressly preserves the right to institute a civil suit while also allowing an application to the Commission for compensation. Section 12B(4) contemplates a decree in civil proceedings and provides for set-off of amounts recovered under the Commission's order against the decretal amount, which shows that the statute itself envisages concurrent proceedings and guards against double recovery. Regulation 77 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 also requires disclosure of amounts received from any source in relation to the compensation claim, reinforcing the statutory scheme of adjustment rather than exclusion. Section 4(1) further states that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. The doctrine of election of remedies does not apply where remedies are concurrent or cumulative and the legislature has authorised both forums.

Conclusion: The compensation application under section 12B was maintainable notwithstanding pending civil suits, and the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar it.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly allows compensation proceedings in addition to civil remedies and provides for set-off to prevent double recovery, parallel proceedings are maintainable and cannot be excluded by importing the doctrine of election of remedies.

---