AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
02.09.2022: Heard Mr. Shakti K.Pattanaik, Ld counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Ld Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Ld counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr.Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ld counsel for the Respondent No.2.
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2022 (for short ‘The Act’) against an order dated 03.02.2022 passed by ‘Competition Commission of India’ (for short ‘CCI’). Despite the fact that the Appellant has assailed the order of the CCI, to the reason best known to the Appellant, the CCI has not been impleaded as party. The Appeal has been preferred against an order dated 03.02.2022 whereby the information filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Act alleging violation of Section 3 & 4 of the Act against the Respondent, was directed to be closed. Ld counsel for the Appellant tried to persuade this Tribunal that there is specific case of ‘dominance’ as well as ‘violation of Section 3 of the Act’. The Ld CCI without considering those facts has closed the complaint. Ld counsel for the Appellant has specifically referred to para 13 of the impugned order and submits that the order is liable to be set aside and CCI may be directed to conduct investigation and enquiry and pass appropriate order.
It would be appropriate to reproduce para 13 of the impugned order dated 03.02.2022:
“13.At this stage, it is pertinent to note that, in Case No. 21 of 2019 (Neha Gupta v. Tata Motors Ltd and Others) and Case No. 16 of 2020 (Nishant P. Bhutada v. Tata Motors Ltd and Others), contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were alleged against Tata Motors, inter alia, in respect of certain clauses of the Dealership Agreements in the passenger vehicle segment as well as in the category of small commercial vehicles. While passing a common order dated 04.05.2021 under Section 26(1) of the Act in the aforesaid cases directing investigation by the Director General, it was expressly noted by the Commission that it was not inclined to examine the conduct emanating in the passenger vehicle segment since, inter alia, Tata Motors was not found to command any significant market power in the passenger vehicles market.”
Ld counsel for the Respondents have opposed the said prayer and submitted that there is no apparent error in the order.
Besides hearing ld counsel for the parties, we have also perused the material available on record, particularly, the impugned order. This Tribunal has also noticed that CCI while closing the proceeding had noticed that the Appellant wanted to raise a dispute regarding outstanding claim of Rs. 4,53,37,902/-(Rupees Four Crore Fifty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Two only). Besides this, there was ‘Arbitration Clause also’. Before parting with the order, it would be necessary to incorporate para 14 of the order which is reproduced herein below:
“14.At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the Informant appears to be more aggrieved of the alleged high interest charged by the OP-1 and the legal notice dated 25.02.2021 sent by OP-1 raising demand upon the Informant towards the alleged consolidated outstanding amount of Rs. 4,53,37,902/- (Rupees Four Crore Fifty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Two only). From the interim relief prayers made by the Informant, it appears that an attempt is being made to the present proceedings to avoid the arbitration proceedings arising out of the Dealership Agreement dated 26.12.2012.”
Ongoing through the same, we are satisfied that the purpose for filing information was not with a view to raise issue of violation of Section 3 & 4 of the Act but to settle his grievance for which Arbitration Clause was already there. It was further informed by Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Ld Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that arbitration proceedings in respect of such dispute is going on. This stand was not disputed by Ld counsel for the Appellant. Ld counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that Arbitration Proceedings is independent of proceeding under the Act.
In view of fact and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order impugned Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.