TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Abuse of dominance investigation notice requirement clarified: no initial notice if no prima facie case; informant need not be heard.</h1> Clarifies that where the competition regulator forms the view that no prima facie case exists in an alleged abuse of dominance matter, its regulations ... Anti-competitive practices - abuse of dominance by Respondent No.2, in terms of Section 19 of the Competition Act - impugned order passed without issuing any notice or conducting the hearing - contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Respondent No.1 has not provided an opportunity to the informant to bring forth the relevant facts - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Section 36(1) of the Act itself says the Commission shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rule made by the Central Government, the Commission shall have the powers to regulate its own procedure. Admitted the Commission has its own regulations known as The Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009. Thus per Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 as also Regulation 19 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, no notice is required to be given if the Commission is of the opinion there exists no prima facie case and the Regulation in such circumstance, requires the Secretary to send a copy of the order of the Commission regarding closure of the matter to the Central Government or the parties concerned as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act. Thus neither the Substantive Act nor its Regulations made thereunder, envisage any notice to informant at initial stage and thus we find no fault in the impugned order. Thus, the principles have been balanced well with the statute wherein the information filed by the appellant herein (informant before Respondent No. 1) has been considered and gone into in detail and further, a speaking order had been passed under Section 26(2) of the Act in complete adherence to the provisions as provided under the present section as well as the said Act. Hence, the allegation that principles of natural justice haven't been adhered to is completely untenable. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether the Commission, in closing an information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, was required to give notice to the informant or otherwise follow principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL) was dominant in the relevant market such that a case under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out against it.Issue (i): Whether the Commission was required to give notice or observe further natural justice procedures before closing the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.Analysis: Section 26(2) provides that where the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case on receipt of information under Section 19, it shall close the matter forthwith and send a copy of its order to the parties concerned. Section 36(1) permits the Commission to be guided by principles of natural justice and to regulate its procedure, and Regulation 19 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 prescribes communication of the closure order. The statutory text and the regulation do not envisage issuance of a prior notice to the informant at the stage of finding no prima facie case.Conclusion: The Commission was not required to give notice to the informant before closing the information under Section 26(2); the closure without prior notice did not breach principles of natural justice.Issue (ii): Whether SCCL was dominant in the relevant market and whether a contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was established.Analysis: The Commission considered market delineation (production and sale of non-coking coal to thermal power generators in India), production shares, ownership structure and prior findings in earlier coal cases. The Commission's assessment that SCCL's market share and presence were negligible, that SCCL was a competitor to Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and that SCCL did not exercise dominance in the relevant market was recorded in a speaking order applying the statutory framework.Conclusion: SCCL was not found to be dominant in the relevant market and no contravention of Section 4 was established; the information was rightly closed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is without merit as the Commission lawfully and correctly exercised its power under Section 26(2) to close the information after concluding no prima facie case and after a substantive consideration of market facts; the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.Ratio Decidendi: Where the Commission, on information received under Section 19, forms the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, Section 26(2) and Regulation 19 permit closure forthwith without prior notice to the informant; a speaking order applying market delineation and dominance analysis suffices to sustain such closure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
