HC seeks CCI's reply to M&M, Tata Motors' plea against fines
27 Sept 2014 6:50 AM IST
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also directed that till the next date of hearing, the order imposing penalty on Mahindra & Mahindra and Tata Motors "shall not be given effect to" as far as these two companies are concerned. While Mahindra has been ordered by Competition Commission of India to pay a fine of over Rs 200 crore, Tata was slapped with an amount of Rs 1400 crore.
The court directed Competition Commission of India to inform it whether the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) is functional and also whether the Supreme Court is seized of any matter challenging provisions of the Competition Act, while the car makers have been ordered to produce a copy of the August 25 order of the anti-trust regulator imposing a fine on them.
The provisions challenged by the two companies pertain to the imposition of penalty (section 27(b) of the Act) and the holding of meetings by Competition Commission of India (section 22) to adjudicate a matter. Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for Mahindra and Mahindra, contended that both provisions are ultra vires the Constitution.
He said that under the Act, Competition Commission of India is arbitrarily imposing penalties without giving a hearing. This view was echoed by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tata, who said CCI is imposing penalty ‘as it sees fit’.
They also contended that in the present case, the issue was heard by a seven-member quorum of Competition Commission of India, however, the order under challenge was passed by only three members.
The court directed Competition Commission of India to inform it whether the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) is functional and also whether the Supreme Court is seized of any matter challenging provisions of the Competition Act, while the car makers have been ordered to produce a copy of the August 25 order of the anti-trust regulator imposing a fine on them.
The provisions challenged by the two companies pertain to the imposition of penalty (section 27(b) of the Act) and the holding of meetings by Competition Commission of India (section 22) to adjudicate a matter. Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for Mahindra and Mahindra, contended that both provisions are ultra vires the Constitution.
He said that under the Act, Competition Commission of India is arbitrarily imposing penalties without giving a hearing. This view was echoed by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tata, who said CCI is imposing penalty ‘as it sees fit’.
They also contended that in the present case, the issue was heard by a seven-member quorum of Competition Commission of India, however, the order under challenge was passed by only three members.
Next Story
