Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (7) TMI 1119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CCI) in Case No. 12 of 2017 titled as "Nagrik Chetna Manch v. SAAR IT Resources Private Limited and Ors". By the order dated 23.04.2019, CCI adjourned the final hearing of the said case to 08.05.2019. On 08.05.2019, CCI heard detailed arguments and reserved the matter for judgment. 2. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders were passed without the presence of a judicial member and therefore, were in contravention of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.: W.P.(C) 11467 of 2018. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are adjudicatory in nature and hence, the presence of a judicial member was mandatory as per the law. 3. The petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with CCI on 25.02.2019. One of the Opposite Parties in Case No. 12 of 2017 sought adjournment of the hearing and CCI, vide order dated 07.03.2019, adjourned the final hearing to 25.04.2019. 9. On 23.04.2019, CCI vide the impugned order provided a last opportunity to some of the Opposite Parties (not including the petitioner) to submit copies of their financial statements by 03.05.2019, failing which they would render themselves liable under Section 43 of the Act. Upon request of one of the Opposite Parties, the final hearing was further adjourned to 08.05.2019. Two members and the Chairperson of CCI were present when the impugned order was passed. 10. On 08.05.2019, the Opposite Parties made their respective detailed submissions in the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (supra) and had issued a circular inviting application from persons with the requisite qualifications for appointment as a judicial member of CCI. He stated that notwithstanding the same, the functioning of CCI could not be paralysed and CCI could function notwithstanding any vacancy. To substantiate his contention, he referred to Section 15 of the Act. 13. He further submitted that in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (supra), the Division Bench had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited vs PN Power Generating Co. Pvt Ltd.: (2014) 11 SCC 53 and State of Gujarat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued to the aforesaid effect. The Central Government was directed to fill the vacancy within the period of six months and it cannot be assumed that the Court had interdicted the working of the CCI during this period. 17. There is also much merit in the contention that the orders passed by the CCI cannot be called into question on account of any vacancy or any defect in the constitution. Section 15 of the Act is relevant and is set out below:- "15. Vacancy, etc., not to invalidate proceedings of Commission.-No act or proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of- (a) any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of, the Commission; or (b) any defect in the appointment of a person acting as a Chairperson or as....