Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
The HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment, holding that imposition of interest/penalty by the regulator was without jurisdiction in the absence of a valid demand notice. The court found that Regulation 3(Form I) and Regulation 5 of the 2011 Regulations make issuance of a demand notice a statutory precondition to any accrual of interest; interest accrues only upon failure to pay within the period specified in such notice. The regulator's contention that interest automatically crystallises on expiry of the penalty period was rejected as unsupported by the statutory scheme and contrary to the principle of legality. No restitutionary or pari materia basis exists to retroactively trigger interest; appeal dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment, holding that imposition of interest/penalty by the regulator was without jurisdiction in the absence of a valid demand notice. The court found that Regulation 3(Form I) and Regulation 5 of the 2011 Regulations make issuance of a demand notice a statutory precondition to any accrual of interest; interest accrues only upon failure to pay within the period specified in such notice. The regulator's contention that interest automatically crystallises on expiry of the penalty period was rejected as unsupported by the statutory scheme and contrary to the principle of legality. No restitutionary or pari materia basis exists to retroactively trigger interest; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
