Competition Commission of India
M.P. Mehrotra vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & Ors. Final ... on 9 January, 2012
«.,.~_:...._ :3 (',OJ'\/H' ZTETEON CGMJVHSEON OF ENEEEA Case No. Misc. 1/20$ (!(4/2009) .D'.éi'i'e£' (if Order" 9.1.I?.m2 Q_E~;D:£1:3.B. This order is beating passed in pm"si1ai*:<:e of €§T®MP'A'i"s; order timed 4th May, 20]] passed under section 533 B of ihe Ciinipetition Act, 200;' wherein the order 0:3' the Commissiim (fated 2§.i€_b.."£m0 pziszsed l£H'E(i€3§"
section 43 of the Act was set aside by {he I%Imi"§3»i«e €,'{3~Jj\/}iP.¢\=.'i" wii':ii ':3 direction to pass fiwssh mrder keegzing in View 'Kine €'.*:i<c-mizzi amid iegai §"J4(!§$ii'i(I~'i'AS as highlighted in tire said 0fi°(i€3i'.
Faictuai Backgrouml _.. In this case em i'm"o1'mati<:>13 'was; filed by the i:'i1"c.>1"n'ia1i_it f:$i'1. MP. on 3.8.2009 e1iiegi1'ig ihai the o'p[p0;sit<-3 p::1.i";i.es, 1'iE13'}'iC',i'y§ Jet _Ai..z"\.\r'2.>.\»<5=. Mei.1rmra (iridia) Ltd. and ]~;.i_=.i§;iiisi'ie1' Airlines; Ltd. hue r;tnL»:2red in'-;o E13') a:L:1'i.i (}(>'11'l]Z')f3IiU\"€ z,1g1'ctcra*.~_ie111 i.n\/mix/;in_g.g, ctpcle .-';i'i£n'ing, joim: Fuel m21ii21gci:n::s:'t. C'*'?'»'T1i'W'-'3 5--.'T"0UW-3i 1'33v'1""91]i1'18» _'}C>inL ne't'wo1"}.«: ]"Z€!'i,i(f)1'..£*l'iiX21,i.i()I1 c;':i_r:. 11. \K.'L:'V;*>)> ~:' ':':~.:.::::'i :.:i5:::_;_2c;:<:i :'t"!(}2/P117 th<:>se> Aii'iiric%:.. are c(>1iect.1i\/<3} <;(>m;mi1ing.>j. :".i;».*j<vr :5' nw-'H~1"\' r,' i ,' at i *4 "\./ ': " ' ' rt ' * " .1 ,' nix C ./"",r.;x-- \-3| , A - 5 am .1130 O§ d3L1S.1.1]§é aim] L!()111lI]d.I]i,})(,)i::i_,1OI], U1L.\g ill. dL.i*...1S-L} 2:.',fi"l7:
:cL_ii'1g_ Lhe \'JOi']_']1'>Cli'Li(')1] in 'the ma3'}<.e't. 11. has fL1I'1i1C]" b.r~2cm Eiifni1im:*<.'<>i*:Lr«;>1iii: '*.'w L
-1., (J17 §3eC't,ir3:':S 3 (ind 4 i1i:s,':i'I.L:t'ing. gm c:nc;ui.i'_~.' mndcti' ii'.:':.' i"';~.':»'x {iii E :3 i =31":
'I\.) so Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act. 2002 and also to direct the 0p.pOSi'te...pa1".ti.€s to discontinue and.._n,o..t to .re--enter in such cartel lilifi' a.2;reement.s.
The Commission considered this irrlormation in its meeting dated 4.8.2009 and after considering the entire material on record and rele\/ant facts and circtimstances relating to this matter which were brought to the notice of the Connnission in the meeting, and formed an opinion that there exists a prima facie case and referred the matter to the Director General "for conducting. investigation into the matter and to submit a report within 45 days of the receipt of the order of the Comrnission.
The Director General vide his note dated 21.7.2010 informed the Cominission that on receipt. of the case from the Ctimmxission, notices were sent to two respondents --~» Jet Airways India Limited and Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. on 1 1.8.2009, under section 36 (2) read with section 41(2) of the Act to furnish the certain information in the office of the DG on 19.08.2009 at 12.30 PM either in person or t1ii'o'ttgl1 an authorized representative under section 35 of the Act. in the said notice. the opposite parties were also informed that in case the required info1"ina.ti(in is not sn'b1niltt.ed tliey may be liable to pay a line as per pro'vision.s of Section 43 of the A ct.
The opposite party No. l, nainely, Jet Airways lndia Limited liled details on 25.8.2t)()9. lelowever. Kingfisher Airlines did not 'furnisl'i the requisite infoifmation and S0'L.1gl1'l an extension of time till 25.8.2t)09. The required ext.en.sion was granted vide DG's_Al.ett"eii'Mdat'e:1 1 8.8.2009. However. as per record. the V; }Ai1'l=ii'nes Lztd. did not furnish the reqtmecl information and iiistgeact~3!idea'1'ts";letter dated 23.23.2009. 1.00l\' the Page 2 0"' 13 Z,' piea that as the said atgreemerit was entered into in October 2008 i.e. prior to coming. into '101'£>€ of the pro\.:i..s:.i.0.ns;_..ot'.S.eCfti.oo. 3. 8;. 4.oitft1.ie .A.ct....a.n.c.1 therefore Coinmi ssi on 11:15 no _j urisdiction. The ieeorci t'urther shows that as the Kiitgfisitei' Airlines Ltd. did not eonipiy with the directions of the DC} for 't'urnishing) the required infoi*ma.tion it was again requested to furnish. the required irrforination/doeuinents vide DG's ietters dated 26.1.2009, 10.9.2009, 15.4.2010, 6.5.2010, 19.5.2010, 36.2010 and 12.7.2010. But 2t.g'cti.n under pretext of filing a iWrit: Petition No. 17 85/2009 in the H.on'b1e High Court of Bombay, the Kins_._:fis11ei' Airiines Ltd. did not furnish the required inforrnation tilottgiit there wars no stay of the proceedings by the 1-1on'b1e High Court.
6. T he Hori'b1e 1~1ig1'i Court of Bombay vide its order dated 31.3.2010 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Kiijgfisitei' Airlines Ltd and thereafter again Otiiee 01 the DC} issued letters to Kingfisher Airiines Ltd. on 15.4.2010, 6.5.2010 and 71952010 to 'furnish details in comp1.iance to the notice dated 11.8.2009. However, Kingfisher Airiines Ltd. instead of complying with the directions of the DC} and e.oopera.ting in the investigation. took the piea that it has flied {:1 Speeia1 Leave Petition in the Supreme Court as_;uinsi the order oi" the i-ion'bie J'"ii.gh Court of Botnbaty t1"1titigi'i no stay oi" the pi'<_ieee(.1ii'1§,:s had been ordered by the 'i-1on'bi ('0 Supreme Court..
Due to non-furnishing of the required in'fr.>rina'tion as per c:1iti'<:>c:t.ioi'is or the DG. the in\=estigz;ttion was cieiayed.
8. As the 1<.i1iisLI"is1teti' /\xi1'111'1€.§iii_'L1§di:'-"K » . 1» it-,?i reoeateci notices issued to it by the office of the Diret:.toirf C3eii1ei%}a1-- I'€'1Cé1T1'L'-C1 to above did not furnish the 'I «.l_ ' 1.
Page 3 oi'13
10. required intorination/document and investigation was not making any ....1?.J_i_QE11§3..S.S_...D.C.i. .1.'€:Ca0H11D§l1§l.'§:d.. _i_11i_.ti.a;Li..Qi1. of .13.1'_Q.Q.€[email protected]%S..Et§;..i1lSL_i.1 _i1i.1_c1_e;i' section 43 of the Act.
The Commission in its meeting held on 24.08.2010 considered the matter and after carefully Eixaljlllllllig the facts and circumstances of the case, took a View that prima facie there has been non compliance, without any reasonable cause, of' the directions given to King,ii.sher Airlines Ltd. by the DG. Accordingly, a notice dated 16.09.2010 was issued to the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. under section 43 of the Act to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why penalty for the above mentioned violation should not be imposed upon it with effect: from 26.08.2009. Kingfisher Airlines was also given an opportunity of oral hearing on 12.10.2010.
The Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. did not avail the opportunity of oral learing. but submitted its reply on 4.10.2010 in response to the notice of the Connnissiori stated as above. It was 'subrnitted that Kingfislier Airlines Ltd. had filed a Writ Petition No. 1785 of 2009 in the Bombay Higli Court Cl1'ctl.l€11gl11g, inter alia, the order passed by the Commission on 04.08.2009 directing the DG t.o cause an im'est.ig.a.tio1i to be made in Case No. 4/2009 which was eventually dismissed by the 1-li.ig1i Court by its order dated 31.03.2010. However, during. the pendency o1t.1ie Writ Petition the Competition Commission as well as the Director General did not proceed with the matter till the or<:1er was pronounced by the l'li.gl1 Court. of B om b ay.
Further, the said order of the Hiigliiflcwuit was challenged by the Kingfisher Airl ines Lt.d. l)€l\(i1\1"€1i.'>l]€ 'V1-1.von'~=ble Supreme Court of lndia by / 3 Ci » i Dag/e 4 of 13 , IV' (.9 I l2.
l3.
way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. l()877 of 20l0 which was . .5 i4.b.§..€L,1 .U,@11lil.)-'. wi th Cl3.'.dW11 .by,_.i_i,..9n..2.él...Q9,2Q.1..Q, _ D_.L1I.l,D,L_'... the .i2,ei1d_eii.ciz_o.f.ilie Special Leave Petition, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. had requested the Additional Director General not to proceed with the matter until the decision of the Supreme Court as it had challenged the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission to investigate into the matter and once the SLP was withdrawn, the liinglisher Airlines Ltd. filed a detailed reply before the Commission on 27.09.2010. Additionally, it has also complied with the notice dated ll 08.2009 issued by the Additional Director General and has furnished relevant documents/information available with it to the ADG, Competition Commission ollndia vide its letter dated 28.09.2010. The Coininission duly considered the replies filed by the Kingfisher Airlines. However", not being convinced with their submission, the Commission imposed on Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. ivide its order da.ted 21.10.2010 a fine of rupees one crore the inaxii.n_u.1n penalty provided under section 43 oi' the Act for the aforesaid violation, being "rupees one lakh per day l or each day during which such 'failure continues subject to a inaximum of rupees one crore".
M/s Kingfislier Airlines tiled appeal before the COMPAT against the above penalty order. The COMPAT. after due. consideration of the____ rival stibnnssion. sct--aside the impugned order on the ground that the relevant aspects and niaterials have not been considered in the proper perspective and the 'reasonable cause" aspect has also not been considered by the CCl in the ]3]'Q;}c3v€l"fM"i "eifigsgpectix/e. lt held that the imposition of penalty cannot be apiiatteij_o:fii.:ou_tiiie. T he statute itself has llrovided for imposition of l3:i€~11E1l'E§'l\\>»7l71é1] tlie: failure is "without reasonable cause". The CC] alslo flztiled.rvto distiriguisli the conceptual Page5oi'13 difference between "t'ailure to comply" and "l">elated eoinplianee". ln the .fo.r.n:i.ei;ease, it is non.- eo,mplianeei.an.cl in the _,]..E1.{e.::[1.£..fi.1_...,.~».L_T/..E.Tl,,.S.',.()';.ix is he/l eonipl i ance.
The CTC_')MPA'l' finally remitted the matter to the CCl to pass 'lresh order keeping, in Vl€\'\' the 'fae.tual and legal position as highlig,hted in its order. To avoid unnecessary delay it also directed the parties to appear before the CCl without: l'Llrther notice on l8.05.20l l, for det;ailed e>;aniina.tion of the issues involved Etll"CSl]. So, this order is being passed afresh in pursuance of the COl\4PAT"s order dated 4th of l\/lay, 20l '1 . Accordingly, the inatter was list;ed for hearing before the Commission on O3.08.20ll. l~lowever, the counsel of M/s Kingfisher Airlines expressed its ina'oilsi'ty to appear on the said date and requested the Commission to allow them to appear on 24.8.2'.Ol l. The Commission re 'fixed the matter for hearing on 24.8.20l l. M/s l<;ll_lgflSll€Y Airlines appeared before the Commission on 24.8.20ll and submitted oral argu.1.nents in support of their earlier contention. The matter was adjourned till 22.'-)20llt'o1' further hearing. l\/l€E1]lV\'l'.til€r on 26m oil' August, 20l l a letter was received in the Conrnnission from l<;.iingl'isher . . . . L . , / 1;
Airlines stating therein that 'ptwsuant to the hearing on 14' Augtrst, W / J) l l in the above mentioned matter, it is most litnnbly sul':m.it't.ed that. 1 the Hori"hl»3 Cforr:n'iission treat all the pleadin in the Appeal No. l (l of Ztlltl zmcl our re.<;p«;mse dated 4-" OCtoher._ Zllltl to the show cause notie.e dated lt:-"ii '-'ptemher, 20l O as part of our submissions made on 32 H' AL.lgL1st), Ztll l Thus, it is clear l'roni the i"epilfv~ Ofii«l\p/ll/'s 'l_<;l_1lg"T1Sll€K' Airlines that 'tl_1€}' 1 , .. r i ' .1, .7-'.:..
nave nothing. '.0 ao(.l in Li1€';l.l 4 ' x -..u.
,~.;sl'l pi?c>cee.tlings e>;eept w_li2;1texre:r has been |7'e.r'{:-5 ti» 0*' 13 reiterated by them in the earlier proceedings. They have already taken .th.i.ei..i:s't.a1i Ll. th at sin cc .l.lf.1.Cr111£lIl,§3lT._,W.&l.S. .]3.E:1.1 Clillg.,.l1@fQli§2,,_B.Q.1Il12E1§LHlQl1...Q_O_1lIl., H and Supreme Ciourt, they were not obliged to 'ilile replies before the DG. Now, the issue in question is whether mere filing of Writ petition or for that matter SLP challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission entitles the party not to file replies in a pending proceeding and can it be treated as reasonable cause for non-- compliance'? Merely filing of a SLP does not mean that a person would not comply to Summons issued under the Act. It shows scant disregard to a valid Summons and cannot be a reasonable cause for non--compliance. l7. Coming to the COMP/~\T's finding that relevant materials of the case have not been considered by the Commission in proper perspective; the Commission examined this aspect. afresh. In this reoard, the DG's Report filed on l l .05.20l O which gives the chronological sequence of events in the case was considered by the Cominission. The details are given as under":-
;"is;'.i~iT"i"'e"'n:.{gaite*rii;t"ri:ieie Of Date of fieply eeeeeeeeee Z Notice Coimplia it e e ' Response l* "0 l ' weeks sought i ' . "A" '""""'"wA"'"'"km""'--"'A'""""'"'"iv""""'"'""if"f'"'H"f"T"f""'"'*"'""*'""'""*'""""_""":'"'""i l 2- 1 l8.08.2009 2- .08.Z'.009 23.08.2009 1 g gL,W--(:"t>tgeiA'g V ' 0 received challenging v y 'iurisdiction No :w i th 11 ()'t,.'lC€Ada?11€:V€1'rn-»~.'W" comp lian c e i l .0,-8'7,2j0,0-§°i iimiiiu.09T:iiti9 I1éii?iiii58E'i§iiii;iiEtibr ll pp rit l'etiti on tiled No in el'_;o1'n.i-ation 1 on 08.09.2009.
compliance 'ez;er;gi;**7 oi 13 3 gwiiiéfltisztitliai ' 'iRiS:jLiiésiifiii'it6 iiéE>ii§piii5?i'i " '0 1<ep1 111 zabeyanee 111] Qhadgment of Mulmhai High Court Ea, ; known on 31.03 2010. Ignvestigation resumed 211101' the decision of w1"11 " pe1i"ti"o11"be1'ore1*111eM01110a1"'iI=Ii'g'11"t'01:111:9' ' " ' * " " ' 9 N0 1111'01'ma11'10111 1 1 3 flied on the '1 V V grounds (pf 1 1 1 SM'.
1 . 1 1 6 §064.7(.1§.02I0017000? 01;§§05.2010 18.'11£§:i0"1i0 1,.,.,,_.___'_. .
8 0'2§T06.020001 0 1 9 3i12.07.2010} 16.07.2010 I 16.07.201'0 1 . .
1I ]O.106.08.20i1O 17.08.2010 19.08.2010 D6
11. 126.118.2010 00 06.09.2010 03.09.2010 DO 5 H 00 Do ' 7 1f1f9.(15.2f0i171105 0 26.705.20:10 1 2?€.05.200'i*000 16.06.2010 0 ""16.06.20170fi
12.§10.09.2010 17.09.2010 21.09.2010 0 .
1 1 1 D0 1 13. §21.<19.201<1"728 0r27.09.2010 1 28.09.2010 1 ' 1 % ' _De1c:1Zi'.1s0013::1:1'e"c'1"
18. The Commission has n01.ed 'the reasons 1'GCO]'d,E:d by H.o1.1""b1e COMPAT for setting aside order dated 2] 10.2010 0f1he C0111m1.ssi011 and 1"emi1:1;h1g the ma1:1.e1' 1.0 the CC] 10 pass fresh 01"de1"s. T he 'three 1~;ey issues 0101 1'e1a1.e 10 the 0bse1'\'a'1.1o11s 01" the H011"bJe COI\/IPAT are thal 1) 1'em.111de1"s issued 1," 'r\rW A1, A ,,1_1 1 . 1 _ _'I 1 r' 7 _ 1 ' /"x .1 (.L~' V' r11_ U V v Uy uu s.11uu10 zmve oeeu umy 0.0101 ea 111. 11.1) me 1 ea.so11.~1.o1e cause aspec1 1101 *.1ee11 e01i1s'1é1e1'ed by the CC} 111 the p1'0pe1' pe1's'pe9011\re. 211'1ci1 ""
CC} has '1'a1lec1 10 c.11s111'1g111sh 'the co1'1ce'p111a1l d1.1'fe1'e11ce be1wee11 "1'a.11L11'e 10 0(>111p]_\1" and "be]a11,ed e0111pliL--111ce".
19. One 01'1he issues 10 he considered is as 1.0 w}1e1]1.e1' Lhe sL1bseq1.1e1'11 11Q1.iees issued h} the D6 / 21111 01.1111 10 an ex1.e1'1s101'1 01"1'111:1e. If a person does 1101 c(>111_,.}'j]¢\/,.;;~1i11f1en:\Nh:a1j1:.11'c}ig1.11 1he 1.).L1. do? if he 1ssues a . J ' I.'/J,» - S, ' \ ' 1"em111de1' 01' 1e11.e1" SLlbS(§q--U?§311U)"dQ.€3S 11':a11;*1c11'1111 10 e>;1.e1'1s1o11 01 Mme 01' "age 8 0113 a 'fresh notice'? ln our View sending of a subsequent letter does not §l.1l1.E?.L1.13l. 19 ©x1©iIi&sii9>.1i_i C21"lll11§_,i.Q.1iii.will3131? Qf.1lI|.§ii.§&11Ill€1I..XilOl only an el't'ort to get the relevant information and till the time the information is given, violation continues. Otherwise, the only option left before the D6 will be to stop the investigation and start. proceeding, under Section 43 for non compliance. This will unduly delay the iiwes'tiga.'tion. Thus the Commission is of the view that merely because of sending, reminders by the DC}, the violation does not get condoned.
20. The Commission has once again considered the provisions of section 43 of the Act, which is reproduced below, in the context of the observa.ti.ons of the I-lon'ble COMPAT:
"Penalty for failiiire to comply with directions of Conimission and Director General [v-'B3. lf any person fails to comply, without reasonable cause, with a direction given by --
(a) the Cominission under sub--sections (27) and (4) of section 36; or ( b) the Director General while €.X€.l'ClS'l,llg] powers referred to in sub~ section (Zl of n 41, seucl- person iiall be punishable with fine if which may extend to rupees one laldi 'F or each clay duririg w such failure continues subject to a inaxiin um oi" rupees one crore_., as lTlEl)' be ClE,'.i,€l'l'l"1ll1€Cl by the Conlmissionl"
The above pro\'ision proyicles for pei'1a.lt_\;' "f or each day Cl"Lll'_l]l£_; which such failure continues". This constructionthe'isai"dapi"o\r'ision indicates that the Act also i'ecc>s_;i1i7;es the fact that ta"'tlie»7icoii.cei',iiedpétity may coinplxg with /r v gs if = ' e ' , .i-. i_s__.E'..:ci_g§W9 oi 13 .. .. a,tii.._Q..n.,i 1,t,.i.s i the directions of the Coniinission after the last date by which eonipiianee iS,..-.§i_.L£§.Z ...}§:11i_9:11-in-.9;t11er....iii9::d§- could be called "belated oonm1iance"1 i'i2]\/'11'].(__'/ 1"€L'.()g]1.1ZtiCi this, the section then provides for penalty for each day during which such 'failure eontinties, which means that this period is treated as the period T or which there is "failtire to eoinpiy" on the part of the party. As such, the period of non--eoinp1.ia.n_ee and the. delay in eomphanee both ainotint to the same 'thing as far as comp titation of period for 1e\Iyi.i'ig.pena1ty for each day is concerned. 0 [\.) Ex.) The next important issue is whether the party had a reasonable cause for non--co1np1ianee, and how the acts of Commission and omission of the party are to be interpreted for arriving at the date from which non- eomp1iance ooinrnenees. The entire period of non--eo1np1ianee, as mentioned in Co.tnrnission°s order dated 21.10.2010 may be divided in two parts in the iight of the tabular statement given in para 17 aboVe:-
(A) The Period from 18.8.2009 to 1.4.4.2010, and (B) The Period from 15.4.2010 to 28.9.2010 (A) The Period from 18.8.2009 to 14.4.2010 As seen from the para 17, the party (Kingfisher /-\ir1ines') had been originally asked by DG vide notice dated 1182009 to 'furnish the i.n.i'orinati.on by 1 7 .8 .20 0 9 . W hiowexcei', instead of >001211131}';1-L1gfl\A.'1I--11L«1§i1€~--~ directions, the pa.i"t"_\z first Chose in response to eha11enge the CCTTS _]L1I'1SCiiC1'iO11 and then went in writ petition on 8.9.2009 before the H.on'b1e High Court. Bombay. At that tifl1€V,,,...C.CiL decided to keep the in\/estigati on t in abeyance ti11 the _itudgeineiit«"o Court. After the disinissai Of W111 hetition on 31.3.201;0i,iit1ie notice on 15.4.2010 to the pai't:y to I-"ti.rn_ish the i"eqttisiteinforination.
......_._ _ A 'ieasonetlvle cause" as required under section 43 of the Act implles "W l«l"3"@ ale"? ic9§?¥¥c$.§$.A-?§'l1i9l?i_ c,§!9l.E!§1.l_l.)lfccl iI.1_Cfi1,12.a.,L§7.iTLa.te <>§)_11Q§:11i_].§l.C.l. party from linnisliing the requisite information, because of cizrcumstances beyond its control. Such a cause is to he submitted by llllfif pan*'t_y bei"ore the Coimnission and Cl€m().l]SL]'fl1€Cl to be palcpahl}-' I"'cL{:l:;()1.]€ill')l€. The Commission can take 21 View about suc;h 21 C7dLlS<':' being, reasonable only on receiving 21 specific sul'>1nissi<>n, and ceu11*1o'l p1'<;'SLl11'1(;' it on the basis of some general S'lE'l,l.,€l",mj].l'l.S. In tliiis case, the only SLlbI]1lSSlO1] 1,Tl£:1.Cl€ by the party was initally l;lf1£:1l CC.'il liad no jLn:i:_~'..dic:tion, and la1,el* tiliat 'tliey had filecl a writ petition before the l'-l0.n'"ble l-llgh C:()u1"ti B<m':»':i>ay ancl the l')"}E1'l',l.6l' was subjudice. lit was not claimed ti'na.t: the H0_n'ble Higli Cotirt, h2:..d i..<.:suecl a stay order, nor was any i1't*.;e'ri1n order issued -4':
U:
in fac't. .
'*1/i'D'1¢l. the ]3a.i''tv \ failed to satisfy the "i'c-:z.ts«:>11able <:aus:e" requi:'en1en.t laid down under Section 43.
However, lQl"lf.':3'€ is one :a.£l«:;liti«:>1i.2:,l 'l'act.<)'l' '\7v'l1;iC--lf'l <_:aLL°.ecl c:.F:rta.in P«.l.l')bi::C§L1.lll_'/ in the situation. 'pc»in1,e<;' out in }.:-am 17, CICl did decide to l«.-eep investigation in alheyance till the _juclg,en"1en.l.l 01"' H(:»n"l.7le High COLU'l., Bombay was 7_"€t'..7'C':,l'V'\'?ICl. Tliis clecismn coulcl haqve 1*eas011ah,ly, even th0'ugl'1 unintentionallv, czszuse/' 'l.lfl€ '3a:r't:\,.l to tljiinll; tihal the C .<Jin1"1::issiolf: hacl indeed ./ l .
kept the DG noticzes in Eal7*E'j/ELflCE?, antl it \>»/'as; not 1"equin'e(:l to furnish the 4-2 ' ' N . - ' q ' 'I'\Y14;'l1r\r~';":/«up. 1 _ -..,.1. ,,,. , A . .- lucibcllléilll Ii: /Q;-}|l(k' vx-1;: ).7Y.7l.,ll,l'..U.l. LL11}. lkltlétét/lllt/111 C" L .,. ,._ -
J U. .1 k: If i :17) 2:~n<:l 119 rmtlce Vv'2;15 'lSf5'(1l.C'/Cl'"'l7f;"'TlI€' 'DC: till l 4.4v.2{ll (ll, an/;l l{t:';";Jll'l ll? \*i<'::\/xr t'l1ci: t)l;>5e1'\.'a't,lons Ojl" l-lon°hle Cl(fj)N,'\4'i}e>'l/.\'_I"' tl'1e C'l<>1nlnl:ssl<)1i gives the hcnefit of clouht to the party and cloegs ,nm'. treat iiiqcl of nc>17l~cr.m'1}.)l i an (B) The period from l5.4.201O to 28.9.2010 The---- -'DG issued ~notvice~-eon ->1-5*.~4»:20e--l*0--- to ethee"part7yei~to- *"furnish""the information by 5.5.2010. However, the party stated that it had filed a SLP before the Hob'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, it would not comply Subsequently, the DG issued 7 reminder notices to the party but the party chose not to comply. 'The SLP with the requirements of the notice.
was filed on 4.5.2010, and it was neither adinitted nor was a stay granted by the Apex Court. As such, there was no reasonable cause for non- compliance in terms of the notice dated 15.4.2010 and subsequent 7 notices and the provisions of Section 43 of the Act. It is further noted that, unlike for the period upto 14.4.2010, there was no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. The party on its own chose to withdraw the SLP on 24.9.2010, and requisite information in compliance of notice dated 15.4.2010 was 'furnished on 27.9.2010.
_(_I_0nclusi0n
23.ln view of the above. the Commission is of the view that Kingfisher Airlines had no 'reasonable cause' for non compliance from 5 5.2010 to 27.9.2010 and is consequently liable to levying of a penalty. The period of non compliance was 145 days. The maximum penalty prescribed under Section 43 of the Act is Rs] l.al<h for each day of default subject to a inaixiniuin of Rs. 1 crore.
o'bservat'ions of Hon'ble Competition Appellate Tribunal in view. a penalty of Rs.50.000/-- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per day totalling to Rs.72.50 lakhs is levied on KlflgflSill313~~All;l"l1"1€S Ltd. under Section 43 of the Act. within 60 days of the Order.
.5 Page 12 of 13 Keepiiig the 'Facts of the case, and the.
")4.
. - .1 j ._ , . , ' I " * .F\/*4; }'~I.i1"12i'3sl'1e3' 9'c';cr<:La;"\/ 1:' 11116/<;:xe<,i 10 :~;c1:d a top} M11115 mdu Lo V. VI / 1-]jnc< I m '1"m Mm'-.1'>!imce _i1m"nt:cIj2x1.c%]\'. .>L;j "~ _.~ ' as //V"
., ~ 5"». '"
~ LMLr:"
r A§SfSTANTDIR§E(3TOR Com'4>e't~iti(>r1 Commission of India . V1 New Deihi ;> 'v ' --'5:>. F'. C3 ~H ' W.