<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (12) TMI 1893 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310219</link>
    <description>Competition Commission proceedings concerning alleged contraventions involve adjudicatory powers with civil consequences and must comply with natural justice. The Commission&#039;s inquiry, investigation, hearing and penalty framework is not purely administrative. The requirement that the decision-maker hear the parties is a fundamental element of procedural fairness. Where a Chairperson who did not hear oral arguments participated in and signed the final decision, the resulting prejudice vitiated the order. An appellate remedy and protection for procedural irregularities did not cure this substantive breach. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after a lawful hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:02:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1893 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310219</link>
      <description>Competition Commission proceedings concerning alleged contraventions involve adjudicatory powers with civil consequences and must comply with natural justice. The Commission&#039;s inquiry, investigation, hearing and penalty framework is not purely administrative. The requirement that the decision-maker hear the parties is a fundamental element of procedural fairness. Where a Chairperson who did not hear oral arguments participated in and signed the final decision, the resulting prejudice vitiated the order. An appellate remedy and protection for procedural irregularities did not cure this substantive breach. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after a lawful hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>