2024 (3) TMI 761 - AT - Law of Competition

NCLAT rejects fee waiver for refiling compensation application under Rule 4(3) citing lack of indigent circumstances

Prem Prakash (Individual) Versus Competition Commission of India, The Director General Central Public Works Department, The Principal Secretary Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department

NCLAT dismissed appellant's application seeking waiver of court fees for refiling compensation application against Competition Commission of India order. ... Seeking waiving off the payment of Court fees in refiling the Compensation Application against the order of the Competition Commission of India - Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Rule 4(3) of the Competition Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2009 provides for waiving the fee, taking into consideration the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the Appellant. Herein, it is claimed that the “Advocate” was not really an Advocate and he withdrew the Compensation Application without the instructions from the Appellant. Also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in RAFIQ AND ANOTHER VERSUS MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER [1981 (4) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT] and also of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in SOHANLAL ARYA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [2019 (11) TMI 1816 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] it is claimed that his fee, may be waived for filing the Appeal. In the first judgment of Rafiq & Anr. relied upon by the Appellant, it is noted that there was an ex-parte order of dismissal of Appeal, which was passed by the Hon’ble High Court on non-appearance of Appellant’s Learned Counsel on the date of Hearing and the application, was made by the Learned Counsel for Recalling the Order and for permission to participate in the hearing of the Appeal, rejected on ground of unexplained delay in presenting the Application to the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that rejection of the Application was not justified as a Party, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate, omission or misdemeanour of his agent i.e. the Lawyer. The case relied upon is distinguished in the sense that the Lawyer, did not appear and defaulted, but, in the instant case, he was very much present in the Hearing, and the Appellant, was also fully aware of the proceedings. Even assuming that the Appellant, was not aware of the fact that Mr. Sumit Jain, was not an Advocate or Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary or Cost Accountant, and he withdrew the Compensation Application, without instructions of the Appellant, waiver of fee, in re-filing the Compensation Application, has to be justified, as per the Rule 4(3) of the Competition Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2009, which provides for waiver, after taking into consideration the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the Appellant. Having gone through the Appellant’s submissions, this Tribunal, does not find any such economic condition or indigent circumstances, which justifies the waiver of the fee. Therefore, the Fee for Re-filing the Compensation Application, cannot be waived. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:The issues involved in this judgment include seeking waiving off the payment of court fees in refiling a Compensation Application against an order of the Competition Commission of India, the unauthorized withdrawal of the Compensation Application, the credibility of the authorized counsel, and the request for waiver of fees based on economic conditions.Summary:Issue 1: Waiving off Court FeesThe Appellant filed an Interlocutory Application seeking waiver of court fees for refiling a Compensation Application against the Competition Commission of India's order. The Appellant claimed that the authorized counsel had withdrawn the application without instructions, leading to the need for a fresh filing with a fee of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Appellant relied on legal precedents to support the waiver request, citing the injustice of a party suffering due to counsel's actions.Issue 2: Unauthorized Withdrawal of ApplicationThe Petitioner alleged that the authorized counsel had defrauded him by withdrawing the Compensation Application without instructions. It was revealed that the counsel was not qualified as an advocate or other legal professional. The Petitioner argued that the request for Rs. 3 lakhs for refiling the application was unjust as it was withdrawn without authorization and not due to any fault of the Petitioner.Issue 3: Credibility of Authorized CounselThe Competition Commission of India submitted that the application for waiving fees was an attempt to misuse the judicial process and waste tribunal's time. They highlighted the background of the case, including the Appellant's lab accreditation issues and previous applications filed by the counsel. The Commission contended that the Appellant's defense regarding the counsel's credentials was false and that the counsel had filed multiple applications in collusion with the Appellant.Issue 4: Request for Fee Waiver Based on Economic ConditionsThe Appellant sought a waiver of fees based on Rule 4(3) of the Competition Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2009, citing economic conditions and reliance on legal judgments. The Tribunal evaluated the Appellant's arguments and legal references but ultimately dismissed the request for fee waiver, stating that no economic conditions or indigent circumstances justified waiving the fee for refiling the Compensation Application.This judgment addresses the complexities surrounding the withdrawal of a Compensation Application, the credibility of the authorized counsel, and the request for waiving court fees based on economic conditions. The Tribunal considered legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case before making a decision on the fee waiver request.