Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. Ravindra Bhat, Prateek Jalan, JJ.
MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED AND ANR - Appellant
Vs.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11467 of 2018, 6610 of 2014, 6634 of 2014, 7087 of 2014, 7121 of 2014, 7186 of 2014, 7306 of 2014, 7321 of 2014, 7327 of 2014, 7334 of 2014, 7417 of 2014, 7638 of 2014; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 44376 of 2018, 44377 of 2018, 44378 of 2018, 20409 of 2014, 16614 of 2014, 39827 of 2018, 16680 of 2014, 31959 of 2018, 16889 of 2014, 17096 of 2014, 17118 of 2014, 17125 of 2014, 17158 of 2014, 17608 of 2014
Decided On : 10-04-2019
Arvind K Nigam, Adv., Sameer Gandhi, Adv., Mikhil Sharda, Adv., Mehtaab Singh Sandhu, Adv., Pratishth Kaushal, Adv., Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Adv., Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv., Shravan Sahny, Adv., Ashwati, Adv., Nakul Gandhi, Adv., Hemangini, Adv., Krithika Ramesh, Adv., Nitin Nair, Adv., Amit Sibal, Adv., Aakash Bajaj, Adv., Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv., Vinay Tripathi, Adv., Ambar Bhushan, Adv., Sanjay Jain, Adv., Vaibhav Gaggar, Adv., Neha Mishra, Adv., Aayushi Sharma, Adv., Vidur Mohan, Adv., Adarsh Chamoli, Adv., Niti Richhariya, Adv., Soham Goswami, Adv., Uvraj Sharma, Adv., V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv., Aditya Bhattcharya, Adv., Aishwarya Dubey, Adv., Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Adv., Arun Kathpalia, Adv., Akshat Kulshrestha, Adv., Rajshree Sharma, Adv., Bani Brar, Adv., Siddharth Nath, Adv., Abhishek Malhotra, Adv., Karan Kapoor, Adv., Neel Mason, Adv., Sanyukta Banerjie, Adv., Vishesh Kumar, Adv., Anand S Pathak, Adv., Amit K, Adv., Mishra, Adv., Akshat Hansaria, Adv., Avinash Amarnath, Adv., Pavan Bhushan, Adv., Abhinav Meena, Adv., Ujwala Uppalusi, Adv., Pranaya Goyal, Adv., Nikhil Ranjan, Adv., Pratyushi Mehta, Adv., Ravi Prakash, Adv., Varun Pathak, Adv., Farmanali, Adv., Diwakar Maheshwari, Adv., Shreyas Edupuganti, Adv., Gaurang Kanth, Adv., Aman Singh Bakshi, Adv., Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, Adv., Kamaldeep, Adv., Shravan Kumar Shukla, Adv., Ashim Sood, Adv., Rhythm B, Adv., Monika Arora, Adv., Harsh Ahuja, Adv.
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
In all these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter "the Act"). The specific challenge is to provisions of Sections 22(3), 27(b), 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F and 61 ("the impugned provisions" hereafter) of the Act and the notification dated 31.03.2011 amending Regulation 48 (1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (hereafter "the Regulations" and the "impugned amending regulation"); and in relation to the appellate remedies to the Competition Appellate Tribunal ("COMPAT"). Now those functions have been taken over by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereafter "NCLAT") due to provisions of the Finance Act, 2017. Though by amendments, the petitioners have impugned provisions of the Finance Act nevertheless, they do not press it, in view of the order of the Supreme Court in a pending proceeding before it, in respect of the general challenge to the Finance Act, 2017.
2. The genesis to these disputes arose on account of a complaint by one Mr. Shamsher Kataria who filed information under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act against M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd; Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd and Fiat India Automobiles Limited on 18.01.2011 alleging that these auto producers were indulging in abusive behavior in regard to the spare parts market. He later filed a supplementary information against Toyota, Skoda, General Motors, Ford, Nissan Motors, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi etc., on 27.01.2011. On the basis of these materials, the Competition Commission of India (hereafter "CCI") recorded its prima facie opinion that the complaints needed investigation by its order of 24.02.2011. Subsequently, on 19.04.2011, the Director General ("DG" hereafter) in pursuance of the directions of the CCI conducted investigation into the allegations made by the Informant and submitted his investigation report. The DG by that report requested for permission to expand the scope of the investigation to include other car manufacturers. By its order of 26.04.2011, CCI expanded the scope of investigation being conducted by the DG to include the petitioner herein and certain other car manufacturers operating in India. The DG thereafter issued notice to the other car manufacturers, on 04.05.2011 under Section 36 (2) read with Section 41(2) of the Act, seeking detailed information and documents from them with reference to an investigation being conducted into certain anti-competitive practice alleged to be prevalent in the sale, maintenance, service and repair market of the cars manufactured in India in Case No. 03/2011. Proceedings in this case were stayed by the Madras High Court in WP 31808/2012 filed by M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., inter alia, challenging the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the CCI. This led to some of the petitioners seeking stay of proceedings through orders of the CCI; in the meanwhile, this court in W.P.(C) 2734/2013 filed by M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, directed that CCI could continue with the proceedings before it, but not give effect to its final order for 10 days. One of the petitioners, i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra (W.P.(C) 6610/2014) filed an application dated 10.07.2013 which requested CCI to ensure that the varying quorum of its Members who have heard the matter would not result in any injustice to or adversely impact the outcome of the judgment in Case No.03/2011. Consequently, CCI by its order dated 24.07.2013 while dismissing that application held that only those (of its) members who had heard the matter and were present at the time of arguments, shall decide the case in question.
3. In the meanwhile, the writ petition before this court and the Madras High Court led to orders of stay in some cases, and notice (in the other case). Eventually, on 25.08.2014, the
