Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
M/s. MRF Limited rep. by its Company Secretary, Ravi Mannath, Chennai - Petitioner
Versus
Ministry of Corporate Affairs(MCA) Rep. By Secretary to Government, Government of India, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 35255 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 2 to 4 of 2015 & W.M.P. No. 1323 of 2018
Decided On : 06-03-2018
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 20(3) – CCI (General) Regulation, 2001 – Regulations 2, 10(2), 11(2) and 15 – Competition Act, 2002 – Sections 3, 19, 26 – Cartel – Existence of – Malpractice – Writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, in Reference Case – Petitioner is a tyre manufacturing Company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of various types of automobile tyres. – 4th respondent herein had send a representation to the 1st respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to erstwhile MRTP Commission, wherein the 4th respondent made an allegation that although prices of natural rubber had gone down, the tyre manufacturers have increased the prices and therefore, there was a cartel. – Held, It is to be noted that the present writ petition itself was filed after such a long time. – No doubt, the delay is sought to be explained by the petitioner. In any event, this Court has not considered such delay as the reason for rejecting the writ petition, since this Court has taken the view that the very order impugned herein does not give a cause of action to subject the same for interference. – One more factor to be noted herein is that the other supporting respondents in this case have not chosen to challenge the impugned order and on the other hand, they have taken part in the investigation. – However, when this writ petition is filed, these parties raised very many objections with regard to the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted. – Court do not think that these parties can raise all these objections in this writ petition as these grounds are the matter to be raised and agitated before the Commission or before the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. – Court makes it very clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the allegations made either in the reference or in the complaint made by the 4th respondent and also on the prima facie opinion expressed by the Commission, since it is not a matter for this Court to go into the same and express its view, that too, at the preliminary stage, more particularly, when the factual aspects of the mater is yet to be finally decided by the Commission by passing a final order. – Court find that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. – Petition Dismissed
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, in Reference Case No.8/2013.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(i) The petitioner is a tyre manufacturing Company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of various types of automobile tyres. The 4th respondent herein had send a representation to the 1st respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to erstwhile MRTP Commission, wherein the 4th respondent made an allegation that although prices of natural rubber had gone down, the tyre manufacturers have increased the prices and therefore, there was a cartel.
(ii) The MRTP Commission, by order dated 13.02.2008 found that the allegation of Restrictive Trade Practice were not substantiated by the 4th respondent. However, by order dated 22.06.2010, investigation was ordered against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 herein. After enquiry, the 1st respondent, by order dated 30.10.2012, held that there was no sufficient evidence to hold a violation by the Tyre Companies of the provisions of Section 3(3) (a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act. The 4th respondent, once again, adopted the same modus operandi by sending a representation dated 28.1.2013 to the 1st respondent. The said representation was forwarded by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent on 16.12.2013. The said representation does not qualify to be a reference as per Section 19 (1)(b) of the Competition Commission Act, as it does not conform to Regulation 2(j) read with Regulation 10(2), 11(2) and 15 of the CCI (General) Regulation, 2001. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 07.01.0214 decided to ask the 1st and 4th respondents to address preliminary arguments. The 2nd respondent on 18.02.2014 noted the statement made by the representative of the 1st respondent that they have no further submission to make in this regard and sought exemption from further proceedings, which was duly allowed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent heard the convener of the 4th respondent and Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association, the 9th respondent herein, and passed the impugned order, ordering the 3rd respondent to conduct investigation in the matter.
(iii) The 4th respondent is a Body with no clear cut objects but with mixed up and doubtful objectives of purporting to represent Chinese tyre manufacturers, importers of Chinese tyres and other segments whose interest do not conform to the interest of the dealers of the tyre manufacturers in India. The 4th respondent is acting on vested interest against the domestic manufacturers. On 11.03.2015, a notice under Section 36(2) read with Section 41(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, was sent by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the impugned order herein, asking the petitioner to furnish certain informations. The petitioner, by letter dated 24.03.2015 sought certain clarifications from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also sought copy of the representation made by the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent, which formed the basis and resulted in the passing of the impugned order. It was also pointed out that the period of investigation 2009-2014 is overlapping with the period covered by Order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent i.e., 2005-2010. On 27.03.2015, a letter was sent by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner giving the requisite clarifications and seeking additional information. On 13.04.2015, the petitioner, once again sought for a copy of reference made by the first respondent and the representation made by the 4th respondent . On 17.04.2015, the petitioner sent a detailed reply to the 3rd respondent furnishing information and document . The 3rd respondent called upon the Chairman and Managing Director and other managerial persons to personally attend the office of the 3rd respondent on 09.07.2015. The petitioner applied for certified copies of the reference made
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
