TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o file the appeal and have the said appeal decided on merits, if it is filed within the period of limitation, is conferred by the statute and that cannot be taken away by imposing the condition of deposit of an amount leading to dismissal of the main appeal itself if the said condition is not satisfied - Position would have been different if the provision of appeal itself contained a condition of pre-deposit of certain amount. That is not so. The Appellate Tribunal, which is the creature of a statute, has to act within the domain prescribed by the law/statutory provision. This provision nowhere stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal can direct the appellant to deposit a certain amount as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal. In f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of transportation of coal and sand since 1981. In June, 2014, the appellant firm participated in two tenders, bearing numbers 03/2014-15 and 06/2014-15 floated by the respondent No. 2 herein i.e. M/s. Western Coalfields Limited. The appellant firm was L-II and not the lowest bidder for allotment of the tenders. In June, 2015, the appellant firm received a notice from the Competition Commission of India, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CCI ) asking to show cause under Section 19(1)(a) read with Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the said notice, it was alleged that the appellant firm was involved in anti-competitive and unfair trade practices in collusion with nine other firms. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the appellant was facing. The Appellate Tribunal, however, passed orders dated December 4, 2017 to the following effect: By way of last opportunity, the appellant is given time till 20th December, 2017 to deposit 10% of the penalty amount, failing which, the appeal stands disposed without referring further to the bench . 4. As per the appellant, since it was in deep financial trouble, it could not deposit the amount by December 20, 2017 in spite of all bona fide intentions. The appellant accordingly filed I.A. No. 84 of 2017 on December 18, 2017 seeking modification of orders dated December 4, 2017. It was stated in the said application that it had incurred net loss of ₹ 3,72,45,393.94 for the Financial Year 2016-17 and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due force and substance in law. 6. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that order of the CCI was challenged by filing appeal under Section 53B of the Act. Along with this appeal, the appellant had also filed application for stay of the operation of the order of the CCI during the pendency of the appeal. Appeal was admitted insofar as stay is concerned, which was granted subject to the condition that the appellant deposits 10% of the amount of penalty imposed by the CCI. It needs to be understood, in this context, that the condition of deposit was attached to the order of stay. In case of noncompliance of the said condition, the consequence would be that stay has ceased to operate as the condition for stay is not fulfilled. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal. (5) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal. 7. The aforesaid provision, thus, confers a right upon any of the aggrieved parties mentioned therein to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. This statutory provision does not impose any condition of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. Therefore, right to file the appeal and have the said appeal decided on merits, if it is filed within the period of limitation, is conferred by the statute and that cannot be taken away by imposing the condition of deposit of an amount lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors. decided on June 12, 2013) . Said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where the appellant had challenged the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to pass conditional order i.e. deposit of 10% of the penalty as a condition for grant of stay. It was argued that the Appellate Tribunal did not have any power to impose such a condition for grant of stay. This challenge was rejected by the Court holding that Appellate Tribunal could pass a conditional stay order. No such issue, that has arisen in the instant appeal, was raised therein, namely, whether the Tribunal could dismiss the appeal itself if the condition attached to the grant of stay is not complied with. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
