TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Competition Law, Denies Relief; Emphasizes Compliance and Case-by-Case Evaluation for Public Interest.</h1> <h3>SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.</h3> The Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Competition Commission of ... Constitutional validity of certain regulations of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 - Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Held that:- Today and in fact even at the time when the present writ petition came up first, CompAT was/is functioning and the appeal if preferred by the petitioner to CompAT would have been taken up for hearing along with the application for interim relief which would have been filed therewith. Thus this petition cannot be compared with other petitions in the batch, interim relief wherein came to be granted in the circumstances - If the same interim order were to be extended to this petition as well as all other petitions which may also be filed impugning the provisions of the Competition Act and the Regulations thereunder, the same would lead to none approaching CompAT, thereby making CompAT non-functional. In these petitions, are not concerned with the challenge even if made to the merits of the order of the CCI as indeed we cannot be and had clarified so at the initial hearing only. In the hearing till now also, none of the counsels has made arguments on the merits of the order of the CCI. The hearing in these petitions is confined to the challenge to certain provisions of the Act and the Regulations thereunder and to the query raised by us in the order dated 30th September, 2014 supra. We do not see any reason for multiplying the petitions. If the said challenge is to succeed, the judgment would bind all those covered thereby. - Thus merely on the ground of having made the same challenge, the persons aggrieved from the orders of the CCI cannot avoid approaching CompAT which as aforesaid is now functional or from seeking the interim relief from CompAT - Decided against appellant. Issues:Challenge to various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 and Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 as unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Impugning the Final Order of the Competition Commission of India imposing a penalty and directing to file an undertaking.Analysis:1. The writ petition challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, alleging a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petition contests the Final Order of the Competition Commission of India dated 1st October, 2014, imposing a penalty on the petitioner and directing the filing of an undertaking within specified timelines.2. The petition has been under consideration since October 2014, with multiple hearings scheduled. The petitioner filed applications for stay of the CCI's order, which were not pursued initially but later renewed due to impending deadlines for compliance.3. A batch of connected matters, including the present petition, challenges a common order of the CCI. Some petitions in the batch were granted interim relief due to issues with the functionality of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CompAT).4. The Court addressed concerns about the functionality of CompAT and the need for consistency in handling petitions challenging the Competition Act and associated regulations. The Court emphasized the importance of not making CompAT non-functional by granting blanket interim relief in all similar cases.5. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument of discrimination, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its merits and public interest considerations. The Court highlighted the need to balance individual rights with broader public interest when granting interim relief.6. The Court cited legal precedents to support its decision and emphasized the petitioner's obligation to comply with directives or face consequences. The Court dismissed the application for interim relief, affirming the petitioner's responsibility to adhere to legal procedures and decisions.7. The judgment underscores the Court's commitment to upholding the rule of law, ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved, and balancing individual rights with the public interest. The decision provides clarity on the legal principles governing challenges to statutory provisions and regulatory orders in the context of competition law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
