Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Shri P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent-M/s CEAT Limited, supporting the appellant, argued that on an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis earlier occasion, when the same complaint was made, the CCI, considering no merits therein, dismissed the same. When the very same AITDF made a complaint against the tyre manufacturers before the MCA, the same was forwarded by the Ministry to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. However, consequent upon the repeal of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the matter stood transferred to the CCI under Section 66(6) of the Competition Act. In the said complaint dated 28.12.2007, the AITDF alleged that the tyre manufacturers were indulging in anti-competitive activities. Yet another allegation was that since the behaviour of domestic tyre manufacturers has been anti-competitive/anti-consumer and they have been indulging in various trade malpractices which had a direct bearing on the revenue of the State exchequer, on receipt of information, the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ordered an investigation into the same and subsequently, when the matter was transferred to the CCI, after giving its thoughtful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case, an order was passed on 22.6.2010 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act holding that there is no sufficient evidence to hold the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis violation by the tyre companies viz., Apollo, MRF, JK, Birla, CEAT tyres. When the CCI has already dismissed a similar complaint, the AITDF once again cannot repeat the same false complaint, based on which the MCA cannot make a reference under Section 19(1)(b) without complying with Regulations 10(2), 10(3) and 11(2). When Regulation 11(2) says that it shall be signed by the Joint Secretary, it gives more importance to the reference going to be made. When Regulation 10(2) makes it mandatory that the information or reference referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall contain the statement of facts, the details of the alleged contravention of the Act, together with a list enlisting all documents, affidavits and evidence, as the case may be, in support of each of the alleged contraventions, and the same shall be duly verified by the person submitting it, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, (2019) 10 SCC 660 to say that if an act is required to be performed by a private person within a stipulated time, the same would ordinarily be mandated. But when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time frame, the same will be held to be jurisdictional unless the consequences thereof are specified. Again referring https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University represented by its Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others, (2009) 4 SCC 590, Shri P.S.Raman pleaded that the Apex Court held in the said judgment that a subordinate legislation when validly made becomes a part of the Act. Similarly, in the present case, the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 were framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 64 of the Competition Act, therefore, Section 15(c) or Regulation 40 may not operate in cases covered by Regulation 15(3). When Section 15(c) states that no proceedings of the Commission shall be invalidated by reason of any irregularity and Regulation 40 states that failure to comply with any requirement of these regulations shall not invalidate any proceedings, cannot operate in cases covered by Regulation 15(3), which states that the defective investigation shall be treated as invalid. Therefore, if Section 15(c) or Regulation 40 is applied to all cases, then, it will render Regulation 15(3) redundant, otiose and useless. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravindra Ramachandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation and others, (2017) 1 SCC 667, Shri P.S.Raman argued that the Apex Court in that case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has held that in case of two apparently conflicting provisions, the fundamental approach is to find out which of the two apparently conflicting provisions is more general and which is more specific. In the present case, it is apparent that Regulation 15(3) is a more specific provision providing for specific outcome. In cases of violation of specific procedure and that Section 15(c) and Regulation 40 are both general provisions, that must be held to deal with the case of violation of other regulations, where no consequence is provided. Coming to the reference made by the Central Government, Shri P.S.Raman argued that the reference made by the Central Government is an invalid one, because the Central Government has merely forwarded a letter received from the AITDF without applying its mind to the facts of the case. Secondly, the Central Government has merely acted as a post office and the reference has been signed by the Director, which is a clear violation of the mandatory Regulation 11. A perusal of Regulation 11 shows that the reference sent by the Government of India to the CCI has not been signed and authenticated by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, but instead by a Director. On receipt of the alleged reference from the Central Government, the Secretary has not scrutinized the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Since it has not been signed by the competent officer, the reference ought to have been returned back to the Central Government for rectification of the defects, as per Regulation 15(2), which has not been done. Therefore, Regulation 15(3) will come into effect and the reference will necessarily have to be declared as invalid. Moreover, the consequential order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) is illegal and this has been overlooked by the learned single Judge. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed, he pleaded.