Competition Commission discretion under the Act upheld; review on insolvency interpretation rejected for no apparent error on record.

Section 29(1) and Section 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002 were construed to mean that a Director-General investigation is not mandatorily required in every case after a show cause notice; the use of permissive language preserves the Competition Commission's discretion, and the earlier contrary reading was replaced. On the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the review challenge to the interpretation of Section 31(4) was held to seek re-argument on merits rather than disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, so review was not entertained on that ground. The earlier directions were otherwise maintained, with consequential steps for further action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on review, Section 29(1) and Section 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002 required a mandatory Director-General investigation after issuance of a show cause notice and whether the earlier view treating the later steps as consequential warranted reconsideration. (ii) Whether the review challenge against the earlier view on Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record.

Issue (i): Whether, on review, Section 29(1) and Section 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002 required a mandatory Director-General investigation after issuance of a show cause notice and whether the earlier view treating the later steps as consequential warranted reconsideration.

Analysis: The provision was read by contrasting the use of "shall" in Section 29(1) with "may" in Section 29(1A). The review court held that the statutory text does not create a rigid two-phase compulsion that makes reference to the Director-General mandatory in every case after a response to the notice. The earlier interpretation was found to curtail the Competition Commission's discretion contrary to the plain language of the provision, and the construction accepted in the separate opinion was adopted as the correct one. The prior discussion in the judgment under review on paragraphs 128 to 131 was therefore replaced by the reasoning recorded in the review order.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Competition Commission and against the contrary interpretation in the judgment under review.

Issue (ii): Whether the review challenge against the earlier view on Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The review grounds were held to re-agitate the merits and seek a different view on the construction of the proviso to Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. That was held to lie outside the narrow scope of review, as it did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record. The review was therefore not entertainable on merits.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the review petitioner and the review was rejected as not maintainable on the ground urged.

Final Conclusion: The judgment partly modified the earlier competition-law reasoning while declining review on the insolvency-law challenge, and the connected directions were maintained with consequential steps for reconsideration and completion of the insolvency process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute uses permissive language for further investigative action after a prima facie notice, the authority retains discretion and the review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue the merits absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

---