Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Maj. Pankaj Rai vs Secretary Competition Commission Of ... on 12 October, 2020

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee

     CA 2967/2020
                                                           1

                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              Civil Appeal No 2967 of 2020


                      Maj Pankaj Rai                                                 Appellant(s)


                                                      Versus


                      Secretary, Competition Commission                              Respondent(s)
                      of India and Another



                                                     ORDER

1 The appeal against the order of the Competition Commission has been dismissed on the ground that there was an unexplained delay of 768 days. Section 53 B of the Competition Act prescribes a period of 60 days for filing an appeal, though delay in filing beyond the period of limitation can be condoned for sufficient cause.

2 The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court to challenge the original order. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14 December 2018 on the ground that the appellant had an alternate statutory remedy of an appeal under the Act. The Writ Appeal was dismissed on 31 December 2018. Even after the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant chose to file a review petition in January 2019 and sought directions from this court for early disposal of the review. Eventually, the Signature Not Verified review petition was withdrawn before the High Court. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2020.10.14 16:07:47 IST Reason: CA 2967/2020 2 3 In these circumstances, it cannot be postulated that the appellant was bona fide pursuing his remedies before the High Court. Even after the dismissal of the petition by a Single Judge and an appeal by the Division Bench, the appellant persisted with a manifestly misconceived remedy. Despite being apprised of the legal position that a petition under Article 226 was not maintainable in view of an appellate remedy, the appellant chose to allow time to elapse by pursuing the proceedings. In this view of the matter, we agree with the view of the appellate tribunal that the delay could not have been condoned in the absence of a sufficient cause or explanation. Whereas the statute contemplates the filing of an appeal within sixty days, the appeal was filed with a delay of over seven hundred days. 4 The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

5 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

….....…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ..…....…........……………….…........J. [Indu Malhotra] ..…....…........……………….…........J. [Indira Banerjee] New Delhi;

         October 12, 2020
         CKB
CA 2967/2020
                                             3

ITEM NO.3                 Court 6 (Video Conferencing)                   SECTION XVII

                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F               I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                            Civil Appeal No.2967/2020

MAJ. PANKAJ RAI                                                          Appellant(s)

                                           VERSUS

SECRETARY COMPETITION COMMISSION OF                                      Respondent(s)
INDIA & ANR.

(With appln.(s) for IA No.79435/2020-STAY APPLICATION and                           IA
No.79433/2020-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and                          IA

No.79434/2020-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/ DIRECTIONS) Date : 12-10-2020 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE For Appellant(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 The Civil Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
2 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
     (CHETAN KUMAR)                          (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
       AR-cum-PS                                BRANCH OFFICER
                (Signed order is placed on the file)