TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill come into operation. Secondly, if there is any irregularity or non compliance of the procedures or regulations resulting in miscarriage of justice alone, Regulation 15(3) will take effect. In all other cases not affecting the merits of the case or causing miscarriage, the non compliance of the regulations will not invalidate the proceedings before the CCI. The Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHAMLAL MURARI ANR [ 1975 (10) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT ] has settled this issue holding that while dealing with procedural law, we must always remember that procedural law is not to be a tyrant, but a servant, not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. This legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in yet another decision in RANI KUSUM VERSUS KANCHAN DEVI ORS. [ 2005 (8) TMI 709 - SUPREME COURT ] . When the Competition Commission has proceeded to order investigation after forming an opinion that a prima facie case exists, the rights of the parties cannot be complained of being affected in any manner at this stage, because the order for investigation does not attract any civil consequences, inasmuch as it does not determine the issue raised agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent-AITDF is hit by the principles of res judicata? - HELD THAT:- The AITDF made a complaint against the appellant and others relating to the year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Since the present complaint is not related to 2008, whereas it alleges that the appellant and others have indulged in cartelization during the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14 by indirectly determining the sale of tyres and tubes in the domestic market contravening the provisions of Section 31 read with Section 33 of the Competition Act, the CCI is empowered to inquire into the fresh complaint for each year, for, Section 27 of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to pass an adjudicatory order for each year of cartelization. The principles of res judicata may not apply, inasmuch as the expression 'for each year of the continuance of such agreement', the CCI is empowered to investigate the complaint of cartelization, as it concerns with each year. Moreover, if the CCI taking up the complaint for the year 2008, finding want of acceptable evidence, dismissed the complaint for the year 2008, it does not mean that the same CCI is precluded from entertaining a fresh complaint for the next year again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring for the appellant pleaded that the fourth respondent-All India Tyre Dealers' Federation, hereinafter referred to as the AITDF sent a representation dated 28.11.2013 to the first respondent-Ministry of Corporate Affairs, hereinafter referred to as the MCA and the said representation was forwarded by the MCA to the second respondent-Competition Commission of India, hereinafter referred to as the CCI on 16.12.2013. The representation alleged that when natural rubber price increased, the tyre prices were increased in a concerted manner by the domestic major tyre manufacturers, however, when the price of natural rubber decreased, the tyre prices were not reduced by the domestic major tyre manufacturers and as such, they indulged in price parallelism and cartelization. In order to support the said allegations, the AITDF mentioned some unauthenticated natural rubber prices for certain years, instead of showing the rubber board price. Neither the actual tyre price nor the year or the name of the company were mentioned in the said representation. Without even showing any proof of price parallelism, the allegation of cartelization under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action against the major tyre manufacturers for not reducing the prices of tyres, also contended that a mere mentioning of Section 19(1)(b) shall not satisfy the requirement of law relating to reference, because the MCA has acted like a post office mechanically, therefore, the letter dated 16.12.2013 cannot be considered as a reference, muchless, a valid reference within the meaning of Section 19(1)(b) of the Competition Act read with Regulations 10 and 11 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations. Moreover, the word 'reference' is defined under Regulation 2(j). Therefore, it shall comply with the mandatory regulations framed under this Act. Further, not even one word is written about the violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act while forwarding the letter. Besides, no names of the tyre producers were mentioned against whom action was to be taken. When the forwarding letter failed to contain the word 'reference', the forwarding of the letter by MCA, being an executive action, to set in motion a reference under the Competition Act, the MCA ought to have recorded some reasons in support of the purported reference. But the MCA not only failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of wrong facts to their knowledge was a punishable violation of Section 44(a) and (b) of the Competition Act, as a matter of fact, the CCI ought to have directed the AITDF to furnish the actual tyre prices and verify the same before passing the order under Section 26(1). Without doing so, the CCI had formed a prima facie opinion without the most essential and fundamental fact, namely, actual tyre prices of opposite parties and wrongly arrived at the price parallelism and cartelization. Again emphasising that it was impossible to make a comparison of the prices of tyres without the actual prices of tyres, he has argued that the AITDF and the CCI had boiled empty vessels to cook the opposite parties. Again to bring his case under Regulation 15(3), it has been argued that the reference was not even signed by the Joint Secretary as required in Regulation 11(2), as it was signed by the Director. Therefore, when the statutory regulation prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular way, it shall be done in that way or not at all. When no person other than the Joint Secretary can sign the reference, it cannot be delegated to anyone by the Joint Secretary, because eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing final order pending disposal of the writ appeal. Thereafter, on 1.9.2021, when the appeal was taken up for final hearing, arguments were completed on 9.9.2021. Only on 11.9.2021, the Director General's non confidential version of full investigation report was served by way of paper book on the counsel for the appellant, without the leave of the Court, as an additional document. Therefore, no reference to the contents of the Director General's report can be made, for the simple reason that any finding or observation by this Court on the report of the Director General would jeopardize the prospect of statutory appeal under Section 53-B of the Competition Act to be filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel also requested this Court not to refer to the report or place reliance on the contents of the Director General's report while disposing of this writ appeal, as it is subsequent to the order passed by the learned single Judge. Moreover, it was not even placed before the learned single Judge, therefore, what was not part of the pleadings before the learned single Judge, cannot be taken up for consideration by this Appeal Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dice would be caused to the parties by a mere direction to investigate and their rights are not affected, is unjustifiable. When the prejudice caused by the order to investigate cannot be called in question till the final order is passed by CCI under Section 27 of the Competition Act and when the punishment is also imposed, the observation of the learned single Judge that the parties are at liberty to raise all their objections before the Director General and before the Commission at the time of inquiry before passing final order, is legally not permissible in law. A compendious reading of Sections 26(1) and 41(2) read with Regulation 21(7) and (8) shall disclose all opportunities to object are subject to the pure discretion of the Commission and the Director General. Assailing one of the impugned observations made by the learned single Judge that no prejudice is caused on account of the order under Section 26(1) on the reference, since it is only at the investigation stage, it has been contended that the entire process of investigation by the Director General and the inquiry by the CCI are the same procedure which may result in punishment, therefore, in the absence of reasonable o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aint, based on which the MCA cannot make a reference under Section 19(1)(b) without complying with Regulations 10(2), 10(3) and 11(2). When Regulation 11(2) says that it shall be signed by the Joint Secretary, it gives more importance to the reference going to be made. When Regulation 10(2) makes it mandatory that the information or reference referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall contain the statement of facts, the details of the alleged contravention of the Act, together with a list enlisting all documents, affidavits and evidence, as the case may be, in support of each of the alleged contraventions, and the same shall be duly verified by the person submitting it, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, (2019) 10 SCC 660 to say that if an act is required to be performed by a private person within a stipulated time, the same would ordinarily be mandated. But when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time frame, the same will be held to be jurisdictional unless the consequences thereof are specified. Again referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University represented by its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Joint Secretary, but instead by a Director. On receipt of the alleged reference from the Central Government, the Secretary has not scrutinized the same. Since it has not been signed by the competent officer, the reference ought to have been returned back to the Central Government for rectification of the defects, as per Regulation 15(2), which has not been done. Therefore, Regulation 15(3) will come into effect and the reference will necessarily have to be declared as invalid. Moreover, the consequential order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) is illegal and this has been overlooked by the learned single Judge. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed, he pleaded. 9. Shri AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the ninth respondent-Automotive Tyre Manufacturers' Association (ATMA) argued that the ninth respondent is a non profit company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act and it has not been involved in the conduct or management of the affairs or day to day operation of any of its members. Learned Senior Counsel also stated that the ninth respondent has always conducted all its affairs within the parameters of all applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al under the reference to form a prima facie opinion. 10. Again referring to Regulation 15, Shri AR.L. Sundaresan argued that as per Regulation 15, each reference or information received is to be scrutinized by the Secretary to the CCI to check whether it conforms to general regulations and in case there are any defects, the same ought to be communicated to the parties within a reasonable period of time and the parties are granted a specific time period to clear the defects. As per Regulation 15(3), if the said defects are not cleared within the stipulated time period, the reference or information shall be treated as invalid. In the present case, he pleaded that the Secretary to the CCI failed to adhere to Regulation 15 and did not inform the MCA of the defects in the reference. Instead, the Secretary erroneously placed the reference before the CCI. Therefore, placing the invalid reference in front of the CCI without curing the defects, is a violation of Regulation 15(3), which is mandatory in nature. When a specific effect or consequence is provided in a particular provision, the same must be given effect to. Therefore, the order passed by the CCI is liable to be set aside on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icipating in the proceedings before this Court, surreptitiously filed the Writ Petition No. 9903 of 2021 before the Delhi High Court on 6.9.2021 with a specific prayer, among others, to furnish the copies of the reports of the Tariff Commission for the financial years 2015-16 and 2019-20 before releasing the final order in Reference Case No. 8 of 2013, which is kept in a sealed cover as per the directions of this Court dated 8.3.2018. Earlier, when the ninth respondent-ATMA approached the CCI with an application dated 21.7.2021 praying for furnishing of the aforementioned two reports, the said request was rejected by the CCI on 3.8.2021 on the ground that the Reference Case No. 8 of 2013 was closed since a final adjudication order has been passed in the matter and thereupon the same has been kept in a sealed cover, as per the direction issued by this Court on 8.3.2018. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the ninth respondent-ATMA filed the above writ petition before the Delhi High Court and when the Court, finding no merits, sought to dismiss the writ petition, the ninth respondent withdrew the same. 13. Learned Additional Solicitor General, continuing his arguments, furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat nothing contained herein above shall preclude the Commission from using the reference in any manner as may be deemed fit for inquiring into any possible contravention of any provision of the Act. Again referring to Section 15(c) of the Competition Act, the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that no act or proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of any irregularity in the procedure of the Commission not affecting the merits of the case. Again as per Regulation 40, the failure to comply with any requirement of these regulations shall not invalidate any proceeding merely by reason of such failure, unless the failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, a conjoint reading of Section 15(c) read with Regulations 15(5) and 40 would indicate that the reference cannot be held as invalid. 16. Moving to the order passed under Section 26(1) by the CCI, it has been heavily contended that the Hon'ble three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited and another, (2010) 10 SCC 744 has held clearly that the direction under Section 26(1) after formation of a prima facie opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made under Section 19(1)(b) of the Competition Act is invalid and non est in law? (ii) Whether the order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the Commission under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, shall be liable to be quashed? (iii) Whether the complaint/reference made by the fourth respondent-AITDF is hit by the principles of res judicata? (iv) Whether Regulation 15(3) is mandatory or directory? (v) Whether the conduct of the ninth respondent-ATMA in approaching the Delhi High Court for the relief would amount to forum shopping? 18.1. Issue Nos. (i) (iv): This writ appeal has been brought before this Court by the unsuccessful writ petitioner-M/s. MRF Limited praying to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition on the following three counts:- 18.2. Firstly, the power of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to go into the merits of the allegations in the reference as well as the information is within its domain as the original adjudicating authority, with which the writ Court is not expected to interfere at the preliminary stage, because the CCI being the fact finding authority shall be left free to find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (1) of section 19 of the Act; or (b) seven days in case of a reference received under section 21 or sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Act. (2) The information provider referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act or the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority referred under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 19 or in sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Act, as the case may be, shall, on receipt of the communication about the defects under sub-regulation (1), remove the defects within:- (a) thirty days of receiving the intimation in case of an information or reference under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act; or (b) fifteen days of receiving the intimation in case of a reference under section 21 or sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Act. (3) In case the defects are not removed by the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the concerned party, as the case may be, as per the provision of sub-regulation (2), the information or the reference or the application connected therewith shall be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of Regulation 15(5) would empower the CCI to consider the contents of the information or reference in any manner as it deems fit to inquire into any possible violation of the provisions of the Act, notwithstanding the operation of Regulation 15(3). 22. Besides, this regulation is further fortified by the application of Regulation 40, which is extracted as under:- R.40. Effect of non-compliance.-Failure to comply with any requirement of these regulations shall not invalidate any proceeding, merely by reason of such failure, unless the Commission is of the view that such failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice. A mere reading of the above regulation vividly shows that even the failure to comply with any requirement of these regulations shall not invalidate any proceeding unless the Commission is of the view that such failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Admittedly, the merits of the case of the appellant has not been shown to have resulted in miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, when the MCA, on receipt of the representation dated 28.11.2013 from the AITDF, forwarded the same under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act to the Secretary, CCI, who, after ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5(5) operates notwithstanding Regulation 15(3), Section 15(c) and Regulation 40 empower the CCI, an expert body, would function as a market regulator, to consider whether the defective reference carries any merit for further adjudication. Therefore, what becomes invalid under Regulation 15(3) is only the form of reference and not what the reference contains in terms of information, because when the AITDF alleged that the appellant along with four other tyre manufacturers control over 90% of the tyre production in India by engaging in dominant position through price parallelism, they raise the prices of tyres and tubes on the pretext of increase in the price of natural rubber, but the subsequent reduction in this raw material was not followed by the corresponding decrease in the prices of tyres and tubes, the non-passing of the benefit of reduction in the prices of major raw materials would have a serious impact on the common public, therefore, to find out whether such allegation is true or untrue, the CCI is duty bound to inquire into the said delicate issue irrespective of the argument whether the reference is defective or valid, by virtue of the conjoint reading of Section 15(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage without recording a finding which would bind the parties and it would not make the direction as an order which affects the rights of the parties and therefore, is not appealable. 26. When it is the allegation made by the AITDF that the appellant/writ petitioner, joining hands with his cartel group, unfairly decides the price fixation of tyres and tubes, as a result, the common men at large are put to immense prejudice, whether such allegation is correct or incorrect, the CCI constituted for the exclusive purpose alone can go into this issue, for which the investigation has been ordered and that investigation for some procedural lapses cannot be interdicted. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, (1984) 4 SCC 27, wherein it has been held that the Court should, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. The relevant paragraph-29 of the said judgment reads thus:- 29. Far from advancing public interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ignored by the MCA and ignoring the same, once again the CCI also acted above the law, because the reference was not signed by the Joint Secretary as required under Regulation 11, as it was signed only by the Director. Therefore, the respective learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, sixth and ninth respondents emphasized that when the statutory regulations prescribe a particular thing to be done in a particular way, it shall be done in that way, therefore, the reference would become non est by virtue of Regulation 15(3). 29. In our considered opinion, a conjoint reading of Regulation 15(3), Regulation 15(5), Regulation 40 and Section 15(c) would indicate the clear wisdom of the Legislature that the non compliance of the regulations in each case shall not invalidate the proceedings initiated by the CCI. Only in two situations, namely, if there is an irregularity or non compliance of the procedures affecting the merits of the case, Regulation 15(3) will come into operation. Secondly, if there is any irregularity or non compliance of the procedures or regulations resulting in miscarriage of justice alone, Regulation 15(3) will take effect. In all other cases not affe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial law has been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zolba v. Keshao and others, (2008) 11 SCC 769, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, quoted with approval its earlier decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, holding thus: 21. It has been clearly held that the provisions including the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC are not mandatory but directory. It has been held in that decision that the delay can be condoned and the written statement can be accepted even after the expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons in exceptionally hard cases. The use of the word shall is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision, but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory, because the rule in question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Similarly, the rule of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Therefore, in the present case, the strict interpretation would defeat the object of the Act and justice. 31. Therefore, in the light of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation without being swayed in any manner whatsoever by the observations made herein. 33. When the said order was put to challenge before the writ Court under Article 226, the learned single Judge, framing a point for consideration as to whether the impugned order passed under Section 26(1) of the Act is liable to be interfered with, for the reasons mentioned in the order, answered against the appellant/writ petitioner holding that the order under Section 26(1) based on the reference does not result in civil consequences, because it is only an administrative order ordering further investigation not affecting the interest of the parties in any manner; that the order for investigation does not attract any civil consequences nor it determined the issues raised against the parties finally; that certain procedural lapses that took place while arriving at such prima facie view will not make the entire proceedings invalid; that during the pendency of the writ petition, investigation has already been completed and all the parties have taken part in the investigation and that the report of the investigating officer was submitted before the CCI and only final order alone is to be passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter consideration of the objections and suggestions referred to in sub section (5), if any, the Commission agrees with the recommendation of the Director General, it shall close the matter forthwith and pass such orders as it deems fit and communicate its order to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be. (7) If, after consideration of the objections or suggestions referred to in sub section (5), if any, the Commission is of the opinion that further investigations is called for, it may direct further investigation in the matter by the Director General or cause further inquiry to be made by in the matter or itself proceed with further inquiry in the matter in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (8) If the report of the Director General referred to in sub-section (3) recommends that there is contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, and the Commission is of the opinion that further inquiry is called for, it shall inquire into such contravention in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 35. A reading of the above provision shows that on receipt of a reference from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe from the investigation itself, which would ultimately defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. This is for the reason that they are entitled to place relevant materials before the investigating authority and show that the allegations are baseless. They can also take part in the proceedings before the Commission and contest the matter after filing of the report by the investigating authority. Therefore, in our considered view, the view taken by the learned single Judge that the writ Court cannot interfere with the preliminary order directing investigation on the ground of procedural lapses either in making the reference or entertaining the same, does not call for any interference by this Court. 37. Secondly, during the pendency of the writ petition before the learned single Judge, the investigation had already been completed, thereafter, the report of the investigating officer was also submitted before the Commission and all the parties have taken part in the proceedings and have advanced their arguments. Now, therefore, the final order alone is to be passed by the Commission. At this stage, no one can pre-judge whether the report submitted by the investigating agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case requires investigation by the Director General to find out the presence of any agreement of understanding within the meaning of Section 3 of the Competition Act between the market players and the role of the Association to maintain/increase the prices. 39. Moreover, whether the order or direction issued under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is appealable or not, is concerned, the said issue is no longer res integra. While considering the very same issue, the Apex Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 744 has held vividly that the order or direction issued under Section 26(1) after forming a prima facie opinion is a direction simpliciter to cause an investigation in the matter and it does not effectively determine any right or obligation of the parties to the lis, because it passes the interim order or direction at the preliminary stage without recording a finding which would bind the parties and it would not make the direction as an order which affects the rights of the parties and therefore, is not appealable. It is pertinent to extract paragraphs 37 to 39 of the said judgment as follows:- 37. As alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and therefore, is not appealable. 40. The above ratio clearly shows that the order passed by the Commission under Section 26(1) is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as it does not affect the rights of the parties and it also does not effectively determine any right or obligation of the parties to the lis. The direction issued under Section 26(1) being inquisitorial, preparatory and preliminary in nature, the same does not affect the rights of any party, because it is departmental in nature and does not cause any prejudice giving rise to civil consequences. Moreover, the order going to be passed by the Commission under Section 26(2) being a final order putting an end to the information received in any one of the specified modes, is only appealable. Therefore, the issue No. (ii) is also answered against the appellant. 41. Issue No. (iii): One of the arguments of the appellant for invocation of the principles of res judicata was that in the past, a similar allegation of price parallelism and cartelization was made unsuccessfully against the appellant by the AITDF to the MCA, who in turn forwarded the same to the erstwhile MRTP Commission during the year 2008 in RTP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its turnover for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher. (c) [Omitted by Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007] (d) direct that the agreements shall stand modified to the extent and in the manner as may be specified in the order by the Commission; (e) direct the enterprises concerned to abide by such other orders as the Commission may pass and comply with the directions, including payment of costs, if any; (f) [Omitted by Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007] (g) pass such other or issue such directions as it may deem fit. Provided that while passing orders under this section, if the Commission comes to a finding, that an enterprise in contravention to section 3 or section 4 of the Act is a member of a group as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 5 of the Act, and other members of such a group are also responsible for, or have contributed to, such a contravention, then it may pass orders, under this section, against such members of the group. 43. A close and careful reading of the proviso to Section 27 supports the arguments of the respondents 2 3 that in case any agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not be done directly cannot be done indirectly. (See the judgments in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426, Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1936) 38 BomLR 987 A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602). When this Court has directed the aforementioned order to be kept in a sealed cover, diluting the said direction and trying to get an order from another forum would tantamount to browbeating not only this Court, but also the process of law, therefore, the writ appeal brought up by this appellant in partnership with unclean respondents shall fail. 45. While dealing with the said issue, the Apex Court in Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India and another, (2018) 1 SCC 156, relying upon the judgment in Union of India v. Cipla Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 202, has held as follows:- 27. This Court considered various categories of forum shopping in Union of India Others v. M/s. Cipla Ltd., another, (2017) 5 SCC 262. Even making allegations of a per se conflict of interest require the matter could be transferred to another Bench, has also been held to be another form of forum hunting. This Court has considered various decisions thus: 148. A classic example of forum shopping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibility of conflicting judgments even if the writ appeal and the writ petition at Delhi High Court are allowed or if both are dismissed, inasmuch as the prayer for consideration of both the above reports before releasing the final order, will no way conflict the proceedings before this Court and finally the ninth respondent has been provided with the copies of the said reports by the DPIIT and the grievance also has been addressed. Since the ninth respondent-ATMA, supporting the appellant, has approached the Delhi High Court, they are part of forum shopping. Now the truth of this matter shows that when this Court has directed by its order dated 8.3.2018 to keep the final adjudicating order in a sealed cover before this Court, approaching the Delhi High Court for releasing the two reports of the Tariff Commission for the financial years 2015-16 and 2019-20 is nothing but browbeating the Court of law and also coming to the Court with unclean hands. For such conduct also, the appeal shall fail. Hence, this issue is also answered against the appellant. 47. In view of the same, since the investigation as ordered by the CCI has already been completed and the report of the investigatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
