https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113314 An application for compensation under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 remained maintainable despite pending civil suits arising from the same transaction, because the statute expressly preserved civil remedies and contemplated parallel proceedings. Section 12B(1) allowed a compensation claim alongside a civil suit, while section 12B(4) provided for set-off of amounts recovered under the Commission's order against any decree, showing a legislative scheme to prevent double recovery rather than bar concurrent actions. Regulation 77 likewise required disclosure of amounts received in relation to the claim. The doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because the available remedies were cumulative and the Act operated in addition to other laws. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113314 An application for compensation under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 remained maintainable despite pending civil suits arising from the same transaction, because the statute expressly preserved civil remedies and contemplated parallel proceedings. Section 12B(1) allowed a compensation claim alongside a civil suit, while section 12B(4) provided for set-off of amounts recovered under the Commission's order against any decree, showing a legislative scheme to prevent double recovery rather than bar concurrent actions. Regulation 77 likewise required disclosure of amounts received in relation to the claim. The doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because the available remedies were cumulative and the Act operated in addition to other laws. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113314