2025 (9) TMI 680 - AT - Law of Competition

Appeal dismissed as plea to impose penalties on two companies deemed unsustainable and inconsistent, lacking any merit

International Subscription Agency Versus Competition Commission of India & Ors.

NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's plea to impose penalties on two companies (one already deleted from the proceedings) unsustainable. ... Impleadment as parties in the appeal - seeking deletion of its name from the array of parties - Inadequacy of quantum of penalty imposed upon the Respondents - HELD THAT:- It is really amazing that on the one hand the Appellant itself had got the company, namely, Allied Publishers Private Limited deleted from the array of the parties and on the other hand, the argument is being raised for imposition of the penalty on the said company. There are no merit in the submission made by the Appellant for imposition any kind of penalty upon the said two companies which are not before this court. No other point has been raised. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an application under Rule 11 to implead two companies as parties in an ongoing appeal is maintainable where those entities were not parties before the primary adjudicatory authority and one such entity had earlier been deleted from the array of parties by the appellant. 2. Whether an application under Rule 11 seeking permission to place additional grounds on record is permissible when the additional ground concerns parties which are not before the Court (and whose impleadment has been refused). 3. Whether seeking imposition of penalty upon companies that were not parties before the Commission, and are not impleaded in the appeal, can be entertained in the appeal against the quantum of penalty imposed upon individual respondents and an association. 4. Whether the conduct of making repeated or belated attempts to implead previously deleted parties amounts to abuse of process of court and attracts costs. 5. Whether a party can, during the pendency of an appeal, raise a new issue of law (of general applicability) concerning non-parties so as to obtain relief against them without impleading them. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Maintainability of impleadment application under Rule 11 for entities not before the Commission (and previously deleted): Legal framework The applicable procedural provision is Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 which governs impleadment and amendment of parties in appeals. The Tribunal must consider whether the proposed parties were before the original forum and whether impleadment is necessary for effective adjudication. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal relied on its prior order directing deletion of the same entity and treated that prior order as binding on the appellant in the absence of any challenge to recall or review. Interpretation and reasoning The Court held that the applicant-appellant had earlier caused deletion of one of the companies from the array of parties by an express statement; having not sought to challenge that order, the current attempt to re-implead the same company is inconsistent and untenable. For the other company, the Court noted it was not a party before the Commission; by parity, such non-party status disentitles impleadment at the instance of the appellant. The Tribunal characterized the renewed application as misconceived because it sought to reintroduce parties not before the Commission and, in one instance, previously and voluntarily deleted by the appellant. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Where a party was not a party before the original adjudicatory authority, and where an appellant has previously procured deletion of an entity from the appeal and has not sought recall, an application to re-implead the same entity under Rule 11 is not maintainable. Conclusions The application to implead the two companies was dismissed as not maintainable. Issue 2 - Permissibility of placing additional grounds when those grounds concern non-parties (Legal framework) Rule 11 permits amendments and additional grounds, subject to relevancy and presence of necessary parties to contest relief. Amendments that depend on the presence of new parties require those parties to be before the Court. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for impleadment: because impleadment was refused, the additional grounds referable solely to the non-impleaded companies became inconsequential. Interpretation and reasoning The Tribunal observed that an amendment or additional ground that seeks to attribute liability or secure relief against entities not party to the appeal cannot be fruitfully adjudicated. Since the attempt to bring those companies into the appeal failed, the related additional ground lacked efficacy and could not be entertained. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Permission to place on record additional grounds is subject to the presence of parties necessary to contest the relief; where necessary parties are not impleaded, the additional ground is inconsequential and may be refused. Conclusions The application to place additional grounds was dismissed as rendered infructuous by the refusal to implead the companies. Issue 3 - Competence to impose penalty on non-parties and necessity of impleadment (Legal framework) Principles of adjudication require that a juristic person liable to be affected by an order be given opportunity to be heard; relief by way of penalty against a company requires it to be a party so it may defend itself. The Competition Act regime contemplates identification of parties before the Commission for imposition of penalties. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal relied on the settled procedural principle that companies not before the Court cannot be subjected to orders by the Court in that appeal; it also relied on the appellant's earlier voluntary deletion to preclude belated efforts to subject those companies to penalty in the same appeal. Interpretation and reasoning The Court reasoned that penal consequences against companies not made parties before the Commission and not impleaded in the appeal cannot be judicially imposed in the absence of their being before the Court. The appellant's prior conduct in deleting a company from the array disentitled it to seek penalty against that company later in the same appeal. The Tribunal therefore rejected the appellant's plea for imposition of penalty on the two companies. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: A Court will not impose penal liability on entities that were not parties before the original adjudicatory body and are not impleaded in the appeal; impleadment is a prerequisite to seeking penalties against such entities. Conclusions The request to impose penalty upon the two companies not before the Commission and not impleaded in the appeal was refused as impermissible. Issue 4 - Abuse of process and costs for repeated or inconsistent attempts to implead (Legal framework) Court's inherent power and procedural rules permit imposition of costs where litigative conduct is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or amounts to abuse of process. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal characterized the application as an abuse of process and imposed costs; that order was later affirmed by the Supreme Court which required suspension of payment of the cost subject to final outcome of the main appeal. Interpretation and reasoning The Court found that reattempting to implead a party previously deleted by the appellant, without recall of the deletion or explanation for the volte-face, and seeking to convert non-party status into liability, represented misuse of judicial process and waste of court time. This conduct justified dismissal with costs (to be deposited in public fund). The Supreme Court later declined interference with that decision, subjecting payment of costs to the outcome of the main appeal. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Repeated or inconsistent litigative maneuvers to implead previously deleted parties, without challenge to the earlier deletion, can amount to abuse of process and attract punitive costs. Conclusions The Tribunal dismissed the impleadment application as an abuse of process and imposed costs; the order on costs was upheld in substance by the Supreme Court (subject to the main appeal's outcome). Issue 5 - Raising new issues of law during appeal to affect non-parties (Legal framework) General principle: A party may raise issues of law during an appeal that are permissible under law, but relief affecting non-parties requires their presence; reliance on precedents permitting new legal points does not override the requirement that affected parties be impleaded when relief is sought against them. Precedent Treatment The appellant relied on an old Supreme Court decision authorizing raising new issues of law during proceedings. The Tribunal distinguished that precept on facts: raising a legal issue of general application is permissible, but it cannot be used as a conduit to secure penal relief against entities not before the Court. Interpretation and reasoning The Tribunal accepted that new legal points may be raised, but emphasized that the specific relief sought (penalty on companies) required those companies to be parties. The Court declined to permit the appellant to circumvent the impleadment requirement by couching the plea as an issue of law. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: The permissibility of raising new legal issues in an appeal does not permit obtaining adverse orders against non-parties; impleadment remains necessary where the relief directly affects those entities. Conclusions The Tribunal refused to entertain the appellant's attempt to raise the non-party penalty issue under the guise of a new point of law and dismissed the appeal on that ground; no costs were awarded on the final dismissal of the appeal.