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>Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against MRTP Commission & Tribunal Orders; Upholds Jurisdiction on Review Application.</h1> <h3>M/s A.B.N.A. and Ors. Versus The Managing Director, M/s. U.P.S.I.D.C. Limited, Kanpur & Anr.</h3> M/s A.B.N.A. and Ors. Versus The Managing Director, M/s. U.P.S.I.D.C. Limited, Kanpur & Anr. - TMI Issues:Petition for leave to appeal against orders of MRTP Commission and Competition Appellate Tribunal; Validity of order recalling possession directive; Jurisdiction of MRTP Commission to direct possession; Timeliness of Review Application filing; Consent order contention; Interpretation of MRTP Act provisions.Analysis:The case involves petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking leave to appeal against orders of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose from the allotment of industrial land in Greater NOIDA, where the petitioners were allotted a plot but faced issues regarding possession due to alleged outstanding dues. The MRTP Commission initially directed the respondents to hand over possession but later recalled this directive through a review application. The petitioners argued that the original possession order was a consent order and thus could not be reviewed. They also contended that the Review Application was filed beyond the prescribed period. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the possession directive was beyond the MRTP Commission's jurisdiction and could only be granted by a Civil Court in a specific performance decree.The MRTP Commission's order dated 13.09.2007, directing possession, was found not to be a consent order as claimed by the petitioners. The Commission's ability to entertain the Review Application beyond the 30-day period was supported by Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act, which allows for orders to be amended or revoked 'at any time.' The Commission's power to modify or revoke interim orders was upheld, stating that final relief, such as possession, could be considered at the final adjudication stage. The MRTP Commission acknowledged the jurisdictional question raised by the respondents but deferred it to the final adjudication stage.Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to grant special leave to appeal against the MRTP Commission and Competition Appellate Tribunal's orders, finding no merit in the petitions. The dismissal was made without any order as to costs, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.
TaxTMI 