Court Dismisses Compensation Claims, Urges Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Before Judicial Review.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, determining that applications under Section 12B of the MRTP Act for compensation were not maintainable without separate proceedings to prove monopolistic practices. The Court emphasized that an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the Competition Act was available against the Competition Appellate Tribunal's orders, regardless of the originating Act. It ruled that statutory appeals are a more efficacious remedy than writ petitions under Articles 226/227, reinforcing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary judicial intervention.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of applications under Section 12B of the MRTP Act for compensation without separate proceedings.
2. Contention on the appropriateness of a writ petition under Article 226/227 as a remedy.
3. Interpretation of Section 66 of the Competition Act regarding pending cases and transfer to the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Right to appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act against orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 1:
The petitioners filed applications under Section 12B of the MRTP Act seeking compensation for loss due to monopolistic practices. The respondents argued that without separate proceedings proving the alleged practices, the applications were not maintainable. Citing the Saurabh Prakash case, the Competition Appellate Tribunal held similarly. The petitioners, aggrieved by this, filed writ petitions before the High Court.

Issue 2:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that since an appeal to the Supreme Court was available against the Tribunal's order, a writ petition under Article 226/227 was not the appropriate remedy.

Issue 3:
Section 66 of the Competition Act deals with the repeal of the MRTP Act and the transfer of pending cases to the Appellate Tribunal. It clarifies that cases related to trade practices pending before the MRTP Commission shall be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for adjudication.

Issue 4:
The petitioners argued that since their petitions were filed under the MRTP Act, the right to challenge the Tribunal's order through an appeal under the Competition Act was not available. However, the Court held that the right to file an appeal is a substantive right that can be conferred even under the repealing Act. The appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the Competition Act is available against any order of the Appellate Tribunal, irrespective of the Act under which the order was passed.

The Court referenced legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that the availability of an appeal is a more efficacious remedy than a writ petition under Articles 226/227. It highlighted that statutory remedies must be exhausted before resorting to extraordinary remedies under Article 226. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions based on the reasons provided in the judgment.

---