2018 (1) TMI 1603 - AT - Companies Law

Finality of judgment for 1st Respondent by Competition Appellate Tribunal, pending before Supreme Court, adjourned for further proceedings

Crown Theatre Versus Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation

The judgment has reached finality in relation to the 1st Respondent, confirmed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. However, the matter is pending for ... Maintainability of application - section 53N of Competition Act - whether the application under Section 53 N should not await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court? HELD THAT:- As the judgment dated 19th April, 2016 passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is always open to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to decide all the issue(s) including question as to whether there is curtail/agreement on the part of the Respondents, we are of the opinion that the present application should wait the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Matter adjourned with a liberty to the parties to mention the case after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Issues:1. Finality of judgment regarding 1st Respondent2. Pending appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court3. Consideration of curtail/agreement issueAnalysis:Issue 1: The judgment has reached finality in relation to the 1st Respondent, as confirmed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. However, the matter is still pending regarding the 2nd and 3rd Respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Counsel for the Applicant argues that the application under Section 53 N should not await the decision of the Supreme Court, while the Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents requests to wait for the Supreme Court's decision.Issue 2: The penalty imposed on the 1st Respondent has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, but the finding regarding curtail/agreement is still pending as against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal acknowledges that the judgment is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, which has the authority to decide all issues, including the existence of a curtail/agreement on the part of the Respondents.Issue 3: Given that the judgment is under consideration by the Supreme Court and it retains the power to decide on all issues, including the curtail/agreement matter, the Tribunal decides that the present application should wait for the Supreme Court's decision. The matter is adjourned with liberty for the parties to mention the case after the Supreme Court's decision, allowing for further proceedings based on the Supreme Court's ruling.