2013 (12) TMI 88 - HC - Law of Competition

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 ... Maintainability of Petition – Remedy by way of appeal available or not – Held that:- The appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to file an appeal in terms of the provisions of the Competition Act - the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution will not be justified in intervening in the matter, when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners - The remedy of appeal is, in fact, more efficacious than the remedy by way of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and there is no reason why the petitioners should not avail the said remedy. The right to file an appeal, created by statute is a substantive right which remains unaffected by the subsequent changes in law, unless taken away expressly or by necessary application, though the mechanism for enforcement of such a right being procedural in nature can be changed even retrospectively - the legislature, while repealing an Act, is certainly competent to confer an additional right by 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- SUPREME COURT] – The orders came to be passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal much after the MRTP Act had been repealed and the Competition Act had been notified - despite the fact that the original application was filed under the provisions of Section 12B of the MRTP Act and in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 the Competition Appellate Tribunal irrespective of whether such decision or order be interlocutory, intermediate or final though the orders in their petitions are final orders – Decided against Petitioner. 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.