LexGIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA versus M/S UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 287 GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA v. MIS UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8920 of 2012) DECEMBER 11, 2012. [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE A B PRACTICES ACT, 1969: C s. 12-8 - Power of MRTP Commission to award compensation - Compensation applications dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the appellants had not initiated separate proceedings either uls D 10 ors. 368 of the Act - Held: The powers vested in the MRTP Commission under sub-s. (3) of s. 128 are independent of its powers uls 10 and s. 368 - Impugned orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal are set aside - Applications directed to be decided on merits. E The appellants filed two compensation applications uls 128 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP Commission). On coming into force of the Competition F Act, 2002, the said applications stood transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The respondents raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the applications on the ground that the appellants had not initiated separate proceedings before the MRTP G Commission either uls 10 ors. 368 of the MRTP Act alleging unfair trade practices by the respondents and in the absence of any such separate proceedings, the compensation applications were not maintainable. The 287 ~ H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R. A Competition Appellate Tribunal, accordingly, dismissed the applications. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The MRTP Commission has been vested B with the powers under sub-s. (3) of s 128 of the MRTP Act to make an inquiry to the allegations of monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice made in the application filed under sub-s. (1) of s. 128 and to determine the amount of compensation realizable from C the undertaking or the owner thereof, or, as case may be, from the other person, towards loss or damage caused to the applicant by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive, or unfair trade practice carried on by such undertaking or other person. These powers vested in the D MRTP Commission under sub-s. (3) of s. 128 are independent of its powers u/s 10 and s. 368. [para 11) [297-D-F] 1.2. In fact, s.128 was introduced in the MRTP Act by E Act 30 of 1984 as an independent remedy for a claimant 1 in addition to a suit that he may file to claim any loss or damage that he may suffer by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice as would be clear from sub-s.(4) of s. 128. There is no reference at all ins. F 128 to the provisions of either s. 10 or s. 368, and if Parliament intended that the power of the MRTP Commission to award compensation u/s 128 was to be dependent on the exercise of power of MRTP Commission either u/s 10 or u/s 368, Parliament would have made this intention clear in the language of some G provision in s.128. There is also no reference in either s. 10 or in s.368 to ·any of the provisions of s. 128 and if the Parliament intended to make ss. 10, 128 and 368 interdependent, there would have been some indication of this intention of Parliament ins. 10 or ins. 368. Thus, H the Competition Appellate Tribunal clearly erred in GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA v. U. P. INDL. DEV. 289 CORPORATION LTD. coming to the conclusion that interdependence of the A provisions of s. 10 ors. 368 with s.128 cannot be lost sight of and in the absence of a separate proceeding alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation uls 128 is not maintainable. [para 12] [297-G-H; 298-A-E] B 1.3. The impugned orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal are set aside. It will be open to the respondents to raise a plea before the Competition Appellate Tribunal that the appellants have not made out any case of monopolistic or restrictive trade practice or C unfair trade practice in terms of s.128 of the MRTP Act and if such plea is raised it will be decided by the Competition Appellate Tribunal on its own merits following the decision of this Court in the case of Saurabh Prakash. [para 13] [298-F-G] D Mis Pennwalt (/) Ltd. & Anr. v. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission & Ors. AIR 1999 Delhi 23; and R. C. Sood And Co. (P.) Ltd. & Ors. v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.