TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the „MRTP Act‟), seeking compensation on the ground that they had suffered loss and damage as a result of the monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice carried out by the concerned respondent. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents in the said case that such applications were not maintainable, in the absence of separate proceedings to prove the alleged monopolistic restrictive or unfair trade practices. Relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Prakash Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 228 the Competition Appellate Tribunal, Delhi held that in the absence of separate proceedings alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confiscation or punishment may be imposed or made as if that Act had not been repealed.] [Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that all cases referred to in this sub-section, sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) shall be deemed to include all applications made for the losses or damages under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) as it stood before its repeal.] .... .... .... .... .... "(3)All cases pertaining to monopolistic trade practices or restrictive trade practices pending (including such cases, in which any unfair trade practice has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government or the Commission or any statutory authority or any local authority or any enterprise or any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to them:" The contention of the petitioners is that since the petitions pending before the MRTP Commission which were transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 66 of the Competition Act are required to be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., the MRTP Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, they do not have a right to challenge the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay expressly or by necessary application, though the mechanism for enforcement of such a right being procedural in nature can be changed even retrospectively. However, the legislature, while repealing an Act, in my view is certainly competent to confer an additional right by providing for an appeal to an appropriate forum. A party to the lis is not in any manner prejudicially affected on such an additional right being granted to him while repealing an enactment. 6. A careful perusal of Section 53T of the Competition Act would show that an appeal to the Supreme Court is provided against „any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal‟ meaning thereby that the remedy is available against every order of the said Tribunal irrespectiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the appeal before the Supreme Court was incompetent. The contention, however, was rejected by the Apex Court noticing that the order under appeal was passed by the Rajasthan High Court after coming into force the Constitution of India and, therefore, the provisions of Article 133 were attracted to it and it was appealable to the Apex Court subject to fulfillment of other requirements of the said Article. It was further held that the Code of Civil Procedure of the Jaipur State could not determine the jurisdiction of the Apex Court and had no relevance to the maintainability of the appeal. Thus, despite the fact that no appeal against the order passed by the Jaipur High Court was available at the time lis before the said High Court wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners before the Court. The remedy of appeal is, in fact, more efficacious than the remedy by way of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and there is no reason why the petitioners should not avail the said remedy. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co Ltd vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433, a Three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, noticing that under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the petitioners had right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 and in case dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, a further appeal under sub-section (3) of the said Section, held that since the Act....