LexCOMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 11 S.C.R. 112 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7779 OF 2010) SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, K.S.PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) Competition Act, 2002: ss. 19,26(1), 53-A(1) - Proceedings before the Competition Commission - Appealable order - Information furnished to the Commission alleging abuse by a Public Sector Company of its dominant position and depriving others 0 of fair competition - Direction issued by the Commission in terms of s.26(1) - HELD: Taking a prima facie view and issuing a direction to Director General for investigation would not be an order appealable uls 53-A - Interpretation of statutes - Maxim, 'expressum tacit cessare taciturn' and 'est E boni judicis ampliare justiciam, non-jurisdictionem' - Applicability of - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 43, rr.4(1AJ. s.26(1) - Power of Commission - Ambit and scope of- Party claiming issuance of notice - HELD: Neither any F statutory duty is cast on the Commission to issue notice/grant hearing nor can any party claim, as a matter of right notice and/or hearing at s.26(1) stage. ss. g3-A and 53-B - Appeal before Competition G Appellate Tribunal - Party - HELD: Competition Commission shall be a necessary party where inquiry has been initiated by it suo motu - In all other cases, it shall be a proper party in the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal - Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, H 112 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. STEEL 113 AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. 2009 - Regulations 14(4) and 51 - Code of Civil Procedure, A 1908 - Or.1,r.10. s. 33 - Power of Commission to grant interim orders - HELD: 'During inquiry', if the Commission is satisfied that an act in contravention of the stated provision has been 8 committed, continues to be committed, or is about to be committed, it may temporarily restrain any party without giving notice to such party - The Legislature has intentionally used the words 'not only ex-parte' but also 'without notice to such party' - However, this power has to be exercised by the Commission sparingly and under compelling and exceptional C circumstances, after recording its satisfaction that a case exists for the restraint order - Wherever Commission has passed interim order, it shall hear the affected party, thereafter as soon as possible - Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 - Regulation 18(2) and 31 (2). D s.33 - 'During inquiry' - Connotation of - HELD: Inquiry is commenced when the Commission, in exercise o'f its powers u/s 26(1) issues a direction to the Director General. E s.26(1) - Formation of prima facie opinion - Recording of reasons - HELD: Commission is expected to record at least some reasons even while forming a prima facie view - . However, while passing directions and order dealing with the rights of parties in its adjudicatory and determinative capacity, it is required of the Commission to pass speaking orders. F Object of the Act - Explained - Keeping in view the objective of the Act and various functions performed by the Commission under the Act, directions issued in order to achieve the object of the Act and to ensure its proper G implementation - The said directions shall remain in force till appropriate regulations in that regard are framed by the competent authority - Legislation - Administrative Law - Delegated/subordinate Legislation - Need for - Meanwhile, H 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. A directions issued by Court through judicial pronouncement to remain in force. B \ .. Words and Phrases: Words 'or', 'and', 'any' - Connotation of Expressions 'inquiry' and 'investigation' - Connotation of An information was furnished to the Competition Commission of India (Commission) that respondent no. C 1(SAIL) entered into an exclusive supply agreement with Indian Railways for supply of rails and, thus, it was alleged, SAIL abused its dominant position in the market and deprived others of fair competition. The Commission registered the information and directed the informant to file an affidavit in support of the information supplied by D it. A notice was issued to SAIL enclosing the information submitted by the informant, asking it to submit its reply within two weeks. SAIL requested for six weeks time. The Commission declined extension and, by its order dated 8.12.20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.