TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commission of India (for short 'CCI') alleging that the respondents No.2 to 4 herein/respondents No.2 to 4 in the writ petition had contravened Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The CCI with a majority of four members to one held that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act and passed an order to that effect on 13.01.2015. 4. The appellant herein, who is the informant, filed W.P.(C) No.2957/2015 assailing the order of CCI dated 13.01.2015. On 09.04.2015, the learned Single Judge while directing the pleadings to be completed by all the parties to the writ petition by 08.07.2015, ordered that the respondents No.2 to 4 herein in the meanwhile will not restrain the banks which are currently taking customization and integration services from the writ petitioner/informant qua the software BASE-24 owned by the respondents No.2 to 4 herein. The intra court appeal being LPA No.251/2015 filed by the respondent No.2 herein against the said interim order dated 09.04.2015 was disposed of by judgment dated 27.04.2015 advancing the date of hearing of the writ petition and directing both the parties to complete the pleadings before that date. 5. Pursuant thereto, the writ petition was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CI is to direct further inquiry. Pointing out that the Director General in his report found the opposite parties (the respondents No.2 to 4 herein) to be in a dominant position in the relevant market and that they had imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions on the banks which are using BASE-24 software in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act and that the same had resulted in denial of market access to the appellant herein and other third party service providers, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the CCI's order dated 13.01.2015 disregarding the findings of Director General and arriving at its own conclusion that no contravention of the provisions of the Act is established is without jurisdiction and suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. At any rate, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no reason to interfere with the interim order which has been operating in favour of the appellant even during the proceedings before CCI. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the interim order in favour of the appellant came to be passed by CCI in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle Judge has rightly concluded that there is no need to continue the interim protection. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd.; 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727. 11. Pointing out that no appeal is provided under the Act against the order of CCI dated 13.01.2015, Sh. P. Chidambaram further submitted that in the light of the finality attached by the statute to the findings of fact recorded by CCI the learned Single Judge is justified in declining to continue the interim order. In the light of Section 53-N of the Act which provides for awarding compensation for any loss or damage in the event of a case of contravention being made out, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the loss suffered cannot be compensated in damages in the absence of an interim protection pending the writ petition. Bringing to the notice of this court that there was no interim order in favour of the appellant for about three months after the order of CCI dated 13.01.2015 till the interim direction was granted by this court on 09.04.2015 and that the main petition now stan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the filing of complaint by the appellant before CCI. 15. While considering the appellant's application for interim protection under Section 33 of the Act, CCI was prima facie of the opinion that the fact that the respondents No.2 to 4 had initially permitted the banks to engage services of an enterprise of their choice for customization and thereafter withdrew the consent and imposed a condition that the banks should not take services of the appellant shows that the respondents No.2 to 4 wanted to kill the business of the existing competitor in the field of customization. The CCI was also of the opinion that no inconvenience would be caused to the respondents No.2 to 4 in case the banks continue the customization services with the appellant and accordingly restrained the respondents No.2 to 4 from implementing the condition that the banks should not take services of the appellant herein for customization of the software in question. 16. It is no doubt true that the said order was in operation till a final order came to be passed by CCI on 13.01.2015. However, a clear finding has been recorded by the majority members of CCI in the order dated 13.01.2015 that the alleged dominanc....