Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (5) TMI 1140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er referred to as the 'Appellate Tribunal') dismissing the main appeal itself of the appellant herein for non-compliance of the direction to deposit the amount as a condition for grant of stay, is justified and legal. 2. In order to decide this question, it is not necessary to take stock of the factual matrix in detail. Narration of the following facts, which are germane for deciding this appeal, would suffice. The appellant herein is a partnership firm, engaged in the business 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... late Tribunal admitted the appeal. It also granted stay on the orders of the CCI with the condition of depositing 10% of the total penalty (i.e. a sum of Rs. 36,12,222/-) imposed by CCI, to be paid by the appellant, within two weeks i.e. by December 4, 2017. The appellant could not fulfill the said condition of deposit. When the matter was taken up on December 4, 2017, the appellant pleaded before the Appellate Tribunal that non-compliance because of financial crunch which 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 sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submission which is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the appellant could not comply with orders dated December 4, 2017 vide which conditional stay was granted directing the appellant to deposit 10% of the penalty amount, the maximum effect thereof was to vacate the stay granted and the Appellate Tribunal was not legally justified in dismissing the appeal itself. This submission of the appellant commends acceptance, having 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 t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cient cause for not filing it within that period. (3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the direction, decision or order appealed against. (4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the Commission and the parties to the 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... insofar as stay of penalty order passed by the CCI is concerned. Therefore, at the most, stay could have been vacated. The Appellate Tribunal, thus, had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal itself. 8. We may mention that the learned counsel appearing for the CCI had referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4766-4767 of 2013 with 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 Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates