Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 665 - AT - Companies LawLevy of penalty - grievance is that the ‘Commission’ has not imposed suitable penalty upon the Respondents in terms of the provisions of the Act - Section 27 in the Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Section 27 of the Act provides that if the ‘Commission’ after inquiry finds that any agreement referred to in section 3 or action of an enterprise in a dominant position, is in contravention of section 3 or section 4, as the case may be, it may pass all or any of the orders mentioned in the said provision - The ‘Commission’ found that it would be just and expedient to invoke only the provisions of Section 27(a) of the Act which further provides for a direction to any enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons, as the case may be, involved in such agreement, or abuse of dominant position, to discontinue and not to re-enter such agreement or discontinue such abuse of dominant position, as the case may be. Thus, from a careful reading of Section 27, it appears that the ‘Commission’ has the jurisdiction either to pass all or any of the order which are so mentioned in the said Section. In the present case, the ‘Commission’ has invoked Section 27(a) of the Act. There is no reason to interfere in the well-considered order passed by the Commission - Appeal dismissed.
|