Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in proceedings under the Competition Act, 2002, the Commission can at the stage of an order under Section 26(1) direct investigation into the role of persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business under Section 48, before any final finding of contravention is recorded against the company.
Analysis: Section 48 creates vicarious liability for persons in charge of and responsible for the company, but the investigation under Section 26(1) is directed to the entire matter and is not confined to a phased inquiry against the company alone first and the officers later. The scheme of the Act, the need for an effective and comprehensive investigation, and the requirement of natural justice support consideration of the company's conduct and the role of responsible officers in the same proceeding. The reasoning also accepted that simultaneous inquiry into the company and its key persons is consistent with the statutory framework and the prevailing jurisprudence on analogous provisions.
Conclusion: The direction to investigate the role of the persons in charge at the Section 26(1) stage was held permissible, and the review and recall applications were rejected as lacking merit.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Competition Act, 2002, investigation under Section 26(1) may encompass the role of persons liable under Section 48, and the Act does not require a prior final finding of contravention against the company before such inquiry is undertaken.