RANGI INTERNATIONAL LTD . versus NOVA SCOTIA BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 06-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 659 
RANG! INTERNATIONAL LTD . 
v. 
NOVA SCOTIA BANK & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 253-253A of 2012) 
MAY 06, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND PINAKI 
CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Competition Law -
Competition Commission and 
Competition Appellate . Tribunal - Required to pass reasoned 
C 
orders - Held: The Competition Commission as well as the 
Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important quasi judicial 
· functions and the orders passed by them can have far 
reaching consequences - The minimum required of the 
Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the 
D 
orders passed by them are supported by reasons, even briefly 
- However, on facts, the impugned orders passed by the 
Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate 
Tribunal are bereft of any reasons in support of their 
conclusions and, therefore cannot be sustained - Merits of E 
the issues involved, thus, not gone into by the Supreme Court 
-Matters remanded back to the Competition Appellate 
Tribunal for reconsider~tion of the entire issue on merits 
including the preliminary objections raised by the appellants 
- Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 253-
253-A of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2011 of the 
Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in RA 41 of 2010 
G 
in UTPE 192 of 2008. 
Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant. 
659 
H 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Ajay Abhay Monga, Dev Mani Bansal, Arun Kumar Beriwal 
for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
B 
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. We have perused the impugned order as well as the 
entire record. In our opinion, the appellants have raised 
,. substantial questions of law in the proceeding before the 
v 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. 
However, the order passed by the Member on 2nd September, 
2009 merely states that it is not a case of unfair trade practice 
within the provisions of the MRTP Act and appears to be a 
D contractual matter between the parties. 
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed 
a review application No. 41 of 2010 under the Monopolies and 
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. However, upon the 
enforcement of the Competition Act, the review was required 
E to be heard by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The 
aforesaid review petition was duly heard and dismissed by the 
Competition Appellate Tribunal on 3.5.2011. It appears that 
even in the aforesaid order, the Appellate Tribunal merely 
restated what has been stated by the Member of the 
F Commission in the earlier order. 
4. The Competition Commission as well as the 
Competition Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important 
quasi judicial functions. The orders passed by the Commission 
and the Appellate Tribunal can have far reaching 
G consequences. Therefore, the minimum that is required of the 
Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the orders 
are supported by reasons, even briefly. However, the impugned 
orders are bereft of any reasons in support of the conclusions. 
We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned orders 
H challenged herein cannot be sustained. 
RANGI INTERNATIONAL LTD. y. NOVA SCOTIA BANK 661 
& ORS. 
5. At this stage, we may, however take note of the 
A 
.>ubmissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent 
as it would have some bearing on the pror.eedings that would 
now be reopened before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. 
Learned counsel has submitted that the appellants had willingly 
entered into a contractual relationship with the re.spondent-Bank 
B 
and therefore, the Competition Commission as well as the 
Appellate Tribunal have rightly non suited the appellants. 
6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petition in 
fact, is not maintainable under Section 4(2) of the M.R.T.P. Act. 
C 
He further submitted that the claims made by the appellants are 
even otherwise barred by limitation. 
7. We are not inclined to examine the issues raised by tn'e 
parties on merits, in view of the order proposed. Without going 
into the merits of the issues involved, we deem it appropriate 
D 
to set aside the orders impugned only on the ground that they 
do not disclose the reasons for the conclusions reached. 
8. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, the 
matters are remanded back to the Competition Appellate 
E 
Trib

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