TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act by which the Tribunal has passed the following order:- 53. FPBAI and its individuals, viz. Mr. Sunil Sachdev and Mr. S.C. Sethi, are directed to cease and desist from indulging into any conduct/ practice, which has been found in the present order to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, as detailed in the earlier part of the present order. 54. Under the provisions of Section 27(b) of the Act, the Commission imposes the following amounts of penalty upon FPBAI and its individuals, viz. Mr. Sunil Sachdev and Mr. S.C. Sethi identified above in terms of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act: Table 2 (In Rs.) Sl. No. Name of the Party Penalty Imposed Penalty Imposed in Words 1. Federation of Publishers' and Booksellers' Associations in India 2,00,000 Rupees Two Lacs Only 2. Mr. Sunil Sachdev 1,00,000 Rupees One Lac Only 3. Mr. S.C. Sethi 1,00,000 Rupees One Lac Only 55. The Commission directs FPBAI and the above-stated persons to deposit the respective penalty amounts within 60 days of the receipt of this order. 56. The Secretary is directed to inform the parties accordingly. 2. During the pendenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing this application, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that both Respondents are necessary parties because the Respondents are the one who are misusing the dominant position whereas Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that this not a case of Section 4 rather it is the case of Section 3(3) of the Act, 2022. 6. We have heard Counsel for the parties on this application and are of the considered opinion that the application is totally misconceived because Respondent No. 5, who was earlier party in the appeal and not a party before the Commission, was deleted by non-else then the appellant. It is really amusing as to how, with the change of counsel, the present application can be filed for seeking impleadment of the same party which was once deleted and the order dated 19.07.2021 was not challenged or recalled by the Appellant on the pretext that the statement suffered by the counsel at that time was incorrect. Secondly, Respondent No. 6 was also not a party before the Commission and on that analogy, on which the order dated 19.07.2021 was passed, disentitles the Respondent No. 6 to become a party in this appeal at the instance of the Appellant. 7. Having observed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 27(b) of the Competition Act. Issue notice. Ld. Counsels for all Respondents accept notice. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 2, 3& 5 submit that the Respondent No. 5 was not a party before the CCI and he has wrongly been added as a Respondent No. 5. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent No. 5 may be delated from the array of the parties. We have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties. The Appellant is directed to delete the name of Respondent No. 5 from the array of the parties and is also directed to make necessary corrections in the Memo of Appeal. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents seek and are granted two- week time to file Reply Affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. Let the matter be fixed 'For Admission (After Notice)' on 25th August, 2021." 3. He has also submitted that the Applicant, who sought to be impleaded as Respondent No. 6, was also not a party before the Commission rather Respondent No. 6 is the company of Respondent No. 4 who has been saddled with the penalty. 4. Counsel for Respondent has thus submitted that the act of the Appellant is overreaching t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in appeal being Competition App.(AT) No.04 of 2021. 4. It goes without saying that parties shall be at liberty to raise their contentions, as may be permissible under the law. 5. Subject to the above, the Civil Appeals are disposed of. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed." 6. On 08.08.2025, this court had passed the following order:- The only issue involved in this appeal is about the inadequacy of quantum of penalty imposed upon the Respondents herein. The Tribunal has referred to financial statements submitted by Respondent no. 2 in para 48 of the impugned order and has imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- incidentally, the said financial statements are not attached with the present appeal. The appellant is directed to place on record the financial statements, submitted before the Commission, by way of an application with an advance copy to the Counsel for the Respondent, on or before the next date of hearing. List on 27.08.2025. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has today submitted that he is not arguing on the inadequacy of the penalty imposed upon the Respondents but has a grievance that the companies, namely, Allied Publishers Privat....