Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 969 - AT - Companies LawSelection of CFS services at Port - Forced diversion of the ships to Pipavav or forced the ships to visit both Pipavav as well as GTIPL - Held that:- CCI found that OP-1 is also providing facility of “Direct Port Delivery” which facilitates direct delivery of goods without intervention of any CFS operator to accredited and approved consignees. CCI found no substance in the claim that OP-1 is in vertical anti-competitive agreement. The impugned order concluded that no case of contravention of any of the provisions of Section 3(4) Act has been made out. It can be seen that by providing “Direct Port Delivery” facility, O.P.-1 has provision of better services. When in market a service provider is giving better services, merely pointing out market share, it is attracting is not enough. We find that the impugned order is well reasoned and the submission made by Appellant questioning this order do not find force. The case of the Appellant that the OP-1 blocks the Terminals at Jawaharlal Nehru Port with its own ships to force ships to dock at Papavav suffers from a basic fallacy. The Appellant has relied on chart to show movement of ships. From the chart it is pointed out that ships visiting GTIPL also visit Pipavav Terminal and vice versa. If this is so, there is no substance in the argument that OP-1 was blocking the Terminals at Jawaharlal Nehru Port so as to divert the ships to Papavav. If the ship was visiting GTIPL and then visiting Pipava Terminals also, by that itself it cannot be stated that prima facie case is made out that the Appellant forced diversion of the ships to Pipavav. The entries made in the chart relied on, cannot be said to be making out a prima facie case. There has to be some evidence worth the name to show that it was the OP-1 who forced diversion of the ships to Pipavav or forced the ships to visit both Pipavav as well as GTIPL. There could be various reasons including need of delivery or pick up of cargo at both Terminals and merely pointing out the chart is not enough to start an investigation under the Act.
|