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 1, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

M/S Ceat Ltd. vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs (Mca) on 28 January, 2022

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna

     SLP(C) 958/2022
                                             1


     ITEM NO.6+44             Court 4 (Video Conferencing)          SECTION XII

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

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.958/2022

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-01-2022
     in WA No.529/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)


     M/S CEAT LTD.                                              Petitioner(s)

                                    VERSUS

     MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (MCA) & ORS.                 Respondent(s)

     (With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.10325/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

     WITH S.L.P.(C) No.931/2022 (XII)
     (With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.10007/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.10769/2022-PERMISSION TO
     FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
     S.L.P.(C) No.1049/2022
     (With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.11594/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM
     FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)


     Date : 28-01-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.


     CORAM :
                         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


     For Petitioner(s)        Mr.   Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
                              Ms.   Anuradha Dutt, Adv.
                              Mr.   Vivek Agarwal, Adv.
                              Ms.   Suman Yadav, Adv.
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.01.31
12:37:17 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) 958/2022
                                   2


                    Ms.   Neeharika Aggarwal, Adv.
                    Mr.   Dhruv Nayar, Adv.
                    Ms.   Aayushi Sharma, Adv.
                    Mr.   Divyansh Prasad, Adv.
                    Ms.   B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR

SLP 931/2022        Mr.   Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Adv.
                    Mr.   Subhash Sharma, Adv.
                    Mr.   Aditya Narain, Adv.
                    Mr.   Arnav Narain, AOR

SLP 1049/2022       Mr.   Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
                    Mr.   Faisal Sherwani, AOR
                    Mr.   G.R. Bhatia, Adv.
                    Ms.   Nidhi Singh Prakash, Adv.
                    Mr.   Yuvnesh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)   Mr.   N. Venkataraman, ASG
                    Mr.   Arjun Krishnan, AOR
                    Ms.   Aakanksha Kaul, Adv.
                    Mr.   Sumit Srivastava, Adv.
                    Ms.   Khushboo Mittal, Adv.

For R-4             Mr. Gautam Shahi, Adv.
                    M/s. Dua Associates, AOR

For R-7             Dr.   A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
SLP 958/2022        Ms.   Shweta Shroff Chopra, Adv.
                    Mr.   Aashish Gupta, Adv.
                    Mr.   Rohan Arora, Adv.
                    Mr.   L. Nidhiram Sharma, Adv.
                    Mr.   Arjun Pall, Adv.
                    Ms.   Krithika Ramesh, Adv.
                    Mr.   Ravi Gangal, Adv.
                    Mr.   Shradul S. Shroff, Adv.

For R-7             Ms.   Shweta Shroff Chopra, Adv.
SLP 931/2022 &      Mr.   Aashish Gupta, Adv.
SLP 1049/2022       Mr.   Rohan Arora, Adv.
                    Mr.   Arjun Pall, Adv.
                    Ms.   Krithika Ramesh, Adv.
SLP(C) 958/2022
                                               3


                            Mr. Ravi Gangal, Adv.
                            Mr. Shradul S. Shroff, Adv.


             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                   O R D E R

1 The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has in paragraph 47 of its judgment dated 6 January 2022, noted that the investigation which was ordered by the Competition Commission of India has completed and the report of the Investigating Officer has been submitted to the Commission. Moreover, it has been recorded that all the parties took part in the proceedings before the Commission and the final order was kept in a sealed cover in pursuance of an order dated 8 March 2018 of the High Court. In this backdrop, the High Court has left it open to the parties who are likely to be aggrieved to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

2 Having regard both to the stage of the proceedings and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. Since the High Court has clarified that the parties would be at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law, all the rights and contentions of the parties have been kept open to be pursued in accordance with law.

3 The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

4 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

                  (CHETAN KUMAR)                       (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
                   A.R.-cum-P.S.                         COURT MASTER