TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Tribunal') dismissing the main appeal itself of the appellant herein for non-compliance of the direction to deposit the amount as a condition for grant of stay, is justified and legal. 2. In order to decide this question, it is not necessary to take stock of the factual matrix in detail. Narration of the following facts, which are germane for deciding this appeal, would suffice. The appellant herein is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of transportation of coal and sand since 1981. In June, 2014, the appellant firm participated in two tenders, bearing numbers 03/2014-15 and 06/2014-15 floated by the respondent No. 2 herein i.e. M/s. Western Coalfields....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stay. Vide orders dated November 20, 2017, Appellate Tribunal admitted the appeal. It also granted stay on the orders of the CCI with the condition of depositing 10% of the total penalty (i.e. a sum of Rs. 36,12,222/-) imposed by CCI, to be paid by the appellant, within two weeks i.e. by December 4, 2017. The appellant could not fulfill the said condition of deposit. When the matter was taken up on December 4, 2017, the appellant pleaded before the Appellate Tribunal that non-compliance because of financial crunch which the appellant was facing. The Appellate Tribunal, however, passed orders dated December 4, 2017 to the following effect: "By way of last opportunity, the appellant is given time till 20th December, 2017 to deposit 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed off for non-compliance of the Appellate Tribunal." 5. A pure legal submission which is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the appellant could not comply with orders dated December 4, 2017 vide which conditional stay was granted directing the appellant to deposit 10% of the penalty amount, the maximum effect thereof was to vacate the stay granted and the Appellate Tribunal was not legally justified in dismissing the appeal itself. This submission of the appellant commends acceptance, having due force and substance in law. 6. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that order of the CCI was challenged by filing appeal under Section 53B of the Act. Along with this appeal, the appellant had also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. (3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the direction, decision or order appealed against. (4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the Commission and the parties to the appeal. (5) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n done in the instant case. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the condition of deposit of 10% of the penalty was imposed insofar as stay of penalty order passed by the CCI is concerned. Therefore, at the most, stay could have been vacated. The Appellate Tribunal, thus, had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal itself. 8. We may mention that the learned counsel appearing for the CCI had referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4766-4767 of 2013 with Ors. decided on June 12, 2013). Said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where the appellant had challenged the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribuna....