LexEXCEL CROP CARE LIMITED versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 901 EXCEL CROP CARE LIMITED v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 2014) MAYOS,2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND N. V. RAMANA, JJ.] Competition Act, 2002: A B c ss. 3(3)(a), 3(3}(b) and 3(3)(d) rlw. s. 3(1) and ss. 26(1),27(b) - Complaint by Food Corporation of India (FCI) - Alleging that the three appellant companies and one more company had arrived at anti-competitive agreement in relation to tenders issued by FCI for Aluminium Phosphide Tablets (APT) between the years 2007 and 2009 - Competition Commission of India (CCI) directed investigation - Director General (DG) gave report giving D prima facie .finding affirming the allegations - CCI concluded that the appellant-companies entered into anti-competitive agreement in a concerted manner thereby offending the provisions of s.3 and imposed penalties on all the three appellants at 9% of average 3 years turnover - Competition Appellate Tribunal confirmed the finding of CCI - However, reduced the penalty holding that the penalty at 9% cannot be on the 'total turnover' and has to be restricted to 9% of the 'relevant turnover' - On appeal questions whether s. 3 was applicable in respect of tender issued prior to coming into force of s. 3; whether CCI was barredfi·om investigating the matter pertaining to tender floated in 20 JI as there was no complaint about that tender; whether .finding as regards collusive bidding was justified and whether the penalty has to be on 'total turnover' or only on the 'relevant turnpver' of the offending company - Held: Section 3 would be applicable in respect of the tender issued prior to coming into force of s. 3 as well because the anti-competitive conduct of the offending companies continued even after coming into force of s. 3 - 2011 tender also could be the subject-matter of inquiry even when it was not referred to in the complaint - Section 26(1) is wide enough to cover the investigation by DG - While carrying out such investigation, il other facts also E F G get revealed, DG would be well within its power to include those as H 901 902 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. well in his report - In the facts of the case. the ingredients of s. 3 stand satisfied and the CCI rightly held that provisions of s. 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b) and 3(3)(d) have been contravened by appellant- companies - Section 27(b), while prescribing the penalty on the 'turnover', neither uses the prefix 'total' nor 'relevant' - In the absence of specific provision as to whether such turnover has to be product specific or entire turnover ol the offending company, adopting the criteria of 'relevant turnover 'for the purpose of imposition of penalty will be more in tune with ethos ol the Act and the legal principles pertaining to imposition of penalties. Interpretation of Statutes: lnte1pretation of penal statute - Per Sikri, J.: Interpretation which brings out inequitable or absurd results has to be eschewed - Even if two interpretation are possible, one that leans in favow; of i1?fi"inger has to be adopted, on the principle of strict interpretation that needs to be given to such statutes - Per Ramana, J.: Where interpretative exercise involves various equitable facets, literal interpretation might not be conclusive - An interpretation should sub-serve the intent and purpose of the statutory provision. Doctri nes!Princ iples: Doctrine of proportionality - Applicability of- Discussed. Doctrine of purposive inte1pretatio11 - Applicability of: Principle of 'Noscitur a sociis' - Applicability ol Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: Per A. K. Sikri, J.: 1.1 Though, the Competition Act is of the year 2002 and was passed by the Legislature on 13•h January, 2003, as per the provisions of Section 1(3) thereof, the Act was to come into force from the date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Notification was issued by the Central Government wherein 31'' March, 2003 was specified as the appointed date. However, vide this notification, some of the provisions of the Act, and not all the provisions, were enforced. Section 3 of the Act came into force on 20'" May, 2009 vide S.O. 124l(E) dated 15'h May, 2009 on which date the said notification was published in the Gazette of India as well. [Para 11 I [928-B-D I EXCEL CROP CARE LIMITED v. COMPETITION 903 COMMISSION OF INDIA 1.2 It is not in dispute that agains
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.