SAMIR AGRAWAL versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 15-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
SAMIR AGRAWAL
v.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 2020)
DECEMBER 15, 2020
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K. M. JOSEPH
AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Competition Act, 2002:
ss. 3, 19 and 26 – Application u/s. 26(2) – Seeking initiation
of inquiry – Alleging violation of s. 3 – Competition Commission of
India (CCI) dismissed the case holding that no case of contravention
of provisions of s. 3 were made out – Appellate Tribunal held that
the informant had no locus standi to move the CCI – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: When CCI performs inquisitorial functions,
the doors of approaching the CCI and the appellate authority must
be kept wide open in public interest, so as to subserve the high
public purpose of the Act – The provisions of the Act and
Competition Commission Regulations show that ‘Any person’ may
provide information to CCI irrespective of whether such person is
personally affected or not – Hence, the informant was competent to
move the CCI – However, no case of contravention of provision in
s. 3 is made out – Competition Commission Regulations, 2009 –
Regulations 10, 25 and 35.
Words and Phrases:
‘Person’ – Definition of – In the context of s. 2(l) of
Competition Act, 2002.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A reading of the provisions of the Competition
Act, 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (General)
Regulations, 2009 would show that “any person” may provide
information to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which
may then act upon it in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
In this regard, the definition of “person” in section 2(l) of the
Act, is an inclusive one and is extremely wide, including
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1044
1044
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
individuals of all kinds and every artificial juridical person. This
may be contrasted with the definition of “consumer” in section
2(f) of the Act, which makes it clear that only persons who buy
goods for consideration, or hire or avail of services for a
consideration, are recognised as consumers. [Para 13][1066-E-
F]
1.2 A look at section 19(1) of the Act would show that the
Act originally provided for the “receipt of a complaint” from any
person, consumer or their association, or trade association. This
expression was then substituted with the expression “receipt of
any information in such manner and” by the 2007 Amendment.
This substitution is not without significance. Whereas, a complaint
could be filed only from a person who was aggrieved by a particular
action, information may be received from any person, obviously
whether such person is or is not personally affected. This is for
the reason that the proceedings under the Act are proceedings
in rem which affect the public interest. That the CCI may inquire
into any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act on its
own motion, is also laid down in section 19(1) of the Act. Further,
even while exercising suo motu powers, the CCI may receive
information from any person and not merely from a person who is
aggrieved by the conduct that is alleged to have occurred. This
also follows from a reading of section 35 of the Act, in which the
earlier expression “complainant or defendant” has been
substituted by the expression, “person or an enterprise,” setting
out that the informant may appear either in person, or through
one or more agents, before the CCI to present the information
that he has gathered. [Para 14][1066-G-H; 1067-A-C]
1.3 Section 45 of the Act is a deterrent against persons
who provide information to the CCI, mala fide or recklessly,
inasmuch as false statements and omissions of material facts are
punishable with a penalty which may extend to the hefty amount
of rupees one crore, with the CCI being empowered to pass other
such orders as it deems fit. This, and the judicious use of heavy
costs being imposed when the information supplied is either
frivolous or mala fide, can keep in check what is described as
the growing tendency of persons being “set up” by rivals in the
trade. [Para 15][1067-C-E]
SAMIR AGRAWAL v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
1.4 The 2009 Regulations also point in the same direction,
inasmuch as Regulation 10, does not require the informant to
state how he is personally aggrieved by the contravention of the
Act, but only requires a statement of facts and details of the alleged
contravention to be set out i

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