Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman 1. In this judgment, we shall be dealing with Appeal Nos. 20 of 2011, 22 of 2011, 23 of 2011, 12 of 2012, 19 of 2012, 20 of 2012, 8 of 2013, 9 of 2013, 11 of 2013 and 29 of 2013. These Appeals can be grouped as under:- Group 1: Appeal No. 20 of 2011, Appeal No. 22 of 2011 and Appeal No. 19 of 2012. Group 2: Appeal No. 23 of 2011, Appeal No. 12 of 2012, Appeal No. 20 of 2012 and Appeal No. 29 of 2013. Group 3: Appeal No. 8 of 2013, Appeal No. 9 of 2013, and Appeal No. 11 of 2013. 2. The 1st group consists of Appeal No. 20 of 2011 which relates to Competition Commission of India (in short the 'CCI') Case No. 19 of 2010 in which Belaire Owners Association CBOA0 was the Informant. Appeal 22 of 2011 relates to CCI Case No. 18 of 2010 in which Park Place Resident Welfare Association ('PP-RWA' was the Informant. Appeal No. 19 of 2012 relates to CCI Case No. 67 of 2010 in which the Magnolia Flat Owners Association ('MFOA') and one Shri Rahul Kapoor were the Informant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
1. This is an application by the CCI seeking extension of period by another 45 days w.e.f. 1st May, 2014. 2. Number of Cylinder Manufacturer Concerns had filed appeals before us challenging the order of the CCI holding them guilty of the breach of some provision of the Competition Act. As also the resultant penalties had ordered by the CCI. The appeals were partly heard and allowed in the sense that though the appeals were dismissed on merits the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CCI with the direction to re-hear the parties on the question of penalties. Those penalties were directed to be decided in the light of the observations made by this Tribunal. 3. This Tribunal had given the time upto 1st May, 2014. It was also observed that the parties were to approach the CCI by 1st February, 2014 for the purpose of filing their documents as well as the applications etc. That did not happen. Some of the parties did approach the CCI; however, some did not approach the CCI in time. Therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
HON'BLE MEMBER, SHRI RAHUL SARIN: 1. An appeal has been filed under Section 53-B of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dated 03.07.2012 passed in Case No. 26/2011. 2. At the outset, it will be useful to recount brief facts of the case. An information was filed by M/s. Kansan News Pvt. Ltd. (Informant before CCI and the respondent No. 1 herein) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act for the alleged infringement of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The informant is a broadcaster of news and current affairs TV channel named 'Day and Night News' operating in the states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Appellants are engaged in the business of distribution of cable network channels of broadcasters. They are M/s. Fastway Transmmissions Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant No. 1), M/s. Hathway Sukhamrit Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant No. 2) and M/s. Creative Cable Network ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman. 1. M/s. Shree Cement (the "Appellant") was found guilty of breach of sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Competition Act'). On that account the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter the 'CCI') in case No. RTPE 52 of 2006 imposed a fine of Rs.397.51 crores on the Appellant. This amount was calculated on the basis of net profit of the Appellant from 20th May, 2009 to 31st March, 2011. The CCI ordered 0.5 times of this net profit. It is this order of imposing penalty which is sought to be stayed. 2. It may be mentioned that the proceedings against twelve cement manufacturing concerns were initiated by the MRTP Commission, taking suo-moto notice of an article in The Economic Times on 9th May, 2006 and 29th June, 2006. The said step was taken in view of a sharp raise in the cement prices from 2003-2005. It was Rs.125/- to Rs.145/- per bag, upto December 2005, but the price reached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
1. This order will cover I.A. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73 and I.A. No. 10/2014 in Appeals Nos. 34 to 41 of 2013 and Appeal No. 08/2014 respectively, except I.A. No. 80/2013 in Appeal No.43/2013 in which separate order shall be passed. All these appellants are the manufacturers of rubber products, especially the shoes which are used by the military and para-military forces. The relevant products in this case are Jungle Boots (Hunters) which have to be used while operating in the jungle. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found all these manufacturers/appellants guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) to (d) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The main ground on which the CCI has found these manufacturers guilty is that they have quoted identical or near identical rates in the Rate Contract tender floated at the instance of the Director General of Supply and Disposal, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
1. This appeal is against the order dated 1st July, 2013 passed by the CCI refusing to entertain the information filed before it by one Shri V.Senthilnathan, the appellant. The said information was against opponent no. 1 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and opponent No. 2 M/s. E-Meditak (TPA) Services Ltd. 2. As per the informant, it seems that the opponent no. 2 refused to entertain the claim made by the appellant/informant as a result of which, the informant came up with the information against the opponents. The informant was covered by the group health insurance offered by opponent no. 1 for which the third party administrator was the opponent no. 2. In the sense, that opponent no. 2 was to process the claim made by the claimant under the insurance policy. 3. As per the information, the informant holds a CanCard, a credit card offered by the Canara Bank. For the Cancard holders, there was a policy of group medi-insurance. The informant claims that all the CanCard holders have t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
V.S. SIRPURKAR, CHAIRMAN: 1. In this Appeal, the majority order passed by the Competition Commission of India (in short the "CCI") is in challenge. The operative order passed by the CCI is as under "8.4 The Commission also directs the OP-1 and OP-2 to 'cease and desist' from the following practices and take suitable measures to modify or remove them from their articles of association, rules and regulations; i) The existing rules of Eastern India Motion Picture Association, OP-1 on dubbing must be dispensed with and there should be no bar or prohibition on exhibition of dubbed films or serials produced in any language in the areas under its control. ii) The Co-ordination Committee of Artist and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television Industry should not impose any restrictions in any manner on distribution and exhibition of the Films or TV serials in the areas under its control." 2. The said order was passed by the CCI, having found the original OP-1 and OP-2 guilty of breach of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
V.S. SIRPURKAR, CHAIRMAN: 1. This judgment shall govern two appeals, they being Appeal No. 91 of 2012 by M/s. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCI and Ors. and Appeal No. 92 of 2012 by M/s. Kapoor Glass (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. 2. This Appeal No. 91 of 2012 is filed on behalf of M/s. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) against the order of Competition Commission of India (for short the 'CCI') whereby CCI has held the Appellant guilty of contravention of section 4 of the Competition Act (for short the "Act") and has inflicted a penalty of Rs.5.66 crore. It has also passed the cease and desist order to the following effect:- a) That Schott Glass India should desist from applying dissimilar conditions while giving discounts to Schott Kaisha vis-a-vis other Converters. b) The terms of transactions for supply of tubes to Schott Kaisha, the JV should be similar and non-discriminatory vis-a-vis the other Converters. c) The discount on both amber and clear ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
1. This appeal is filed by one Shri Jitender Bhargava (the Appellant) against the Order passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter called CCI) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act 2002 (the Act) permitting the Combination of two airlines namely Etihad Airways PJSC and Jet Airways (India) Ltd. In their majority order, the CCI have permitted and have expressed in para 57 of the Order that in pursuance of the notice given by these two airlines under Section 2(6) of the Act and after considering the relevant factors mentioned in sub section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the CCI is of the opinion that the proposed combination is not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the CCI accords its approval under provisions of sub section (1) of Section 31 of the Act. In para 58 the CCI has further clarified that this approval should not be construed as immunity in any manner for subsequent proceedings before the CCI for violations of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
1. This appeal is against the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed on 17.07.2013, whereby the CCI has not entertained the injunction application filed by The Air Cargo Agents Association of India, the appellant herein. In that injunction application, the appellant prayed for an injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from implementing Resolutions Nos. 801 and 851 by which the members of the appellant association were required to adopt a particular accounting system i.e. Cargo Accounts Settlement System (CASS). 2. It is the case argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Mitra, that though such request was made through an information led before the CCI, the CCI did not consider the same in any manner. Therefore, Dr. Mitra contends that another application had to be made for pressing the prayer for an injunction on which, there was a detailed hearing by the CCI from both the parties and after hearing the parties, the CCI came to the conclusion that ...
Tag this Judgment!