COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 15-06-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 827
827
COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR.
v.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.2845 of 2017)
JUNE 15, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH, B. V. NAGARATHNA AND AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Competition Law: Competition Act, 2002 – ss. 2(h), 19(4)(g)
and 28 – “Enterprise” – Applicability of the Act – Competition
Appellate Tribunal affirmed the findings recorded by the Competition
Commission of India on various facets of abuse of dominant position
against the Coal India Limited and its subsidiary company – Whether
the Competition Act, 2002 applies to the appellants or not – Held:
The appellants are Government Companies – They were created to
take the place of the Central Government in the matter of supervising
control and managing the affairs of the mines – The “Sovereign
function” of the Government has been excluded from the ambit of
s.2(h) – Carrying on business in mining, cannot be described as a
sovereign function – Hence, the appellant is a person within the
meaning of s.2(h) , therefore comes under the preview of
“enterprise” – The appellants being State, have a duty to keep
uppermost, in their minds, the goal in Art.39(b) – There is nothing
in the definition which excludes a State monopoly which is even set
up to achieve the goals in Art.39(b) – When Parliament enacts laws,
it is deemed to be aware of all the existing laws – Parliament was
aware of the Nationalisation Act – Therefore the express reference
in s.19(4)(g) of the Act to monopolies created under Statutes as
also Government Companies and Public Sector Units for determining
existence of dominant position indicates the intention of Parliament
to bring State Monopolies, Government Companies and Public
Sector units within the purview of the Act – No reason to hold that
a State Monopoly being run through the medium of a Government
Company, even for attaining the goals in the Directive Principles,
will go outside the purview of the Act – As a matter of fact there may
be forums other than the CCI whereunder redress may be sought
against action of the appellants – But that by itself cannot result in
denial of access to a party complaining of contravention of a law
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
which is otherwise applicable – The appellants cannot resist the
imposition of standards of fairness and the duty to avoid
discriminatory practices when a specialized forum has been created
by Parliament under the Act – No merit in the contention of the
appellants that the Act will not apply to the appellants for the reason
that the appellants are governed by the Nationalisation Act and
that Nationalisation Act cannot be reconciled with the Competition
Act – The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 – ss. 5, 11, 28
and 32 – Constitution of India – Art. 39 (b).
Competition Act, 2002 – s.28 – The Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973 – s.32 – Conflict between s.28 of the
Competition Act, and s.32 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act
– Under s.32 of the Nationalisation Act, the mining companies
cannot be wound up – This stands in contrast to s.28 of the Act
which empowers the CCI to divide enterprises abusing dominant
position including adjustment of contracts, formation of winding
up of enterprises among other things – Held: Parliament has
authored both the Act – There is no question of lack of legislative
competence – The words of s.28 of the Competition Act do not admit
of reading down the same – If s.28 of the Competition Act is evoked
and a direction is given to order division, it would be inconsistent
with the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act – It is
made apparent by way of abundant caution in s.28(1), that all that
the CCI could order would be notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force – Parliament has
intended, in order to ensure the proper implementation of the Act,
confer power to order division of an enterprise enjoying dominant
power – This would include the appellants as well.
Competition Act, 2002: ss. 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 3, 4, 19 – Anti
Competitive Agreements – Abuse of Dominant Position – Historical
Background of the Act – Scheme and Provisions of the Act –
Discussed.
Competition Act, 2002: ss. 18, 26, 27, 33, 36 and 41 –
Competition Commission of India – Director General – Power and
Duties – Discussed.
The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 – ss. 3, 4, 5 and
11 –Preamble and Object – Discussed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
Word and Phrases:

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.