9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a wholly owned subsidiary of JC Bamford Excavators Ltd. (respondent No.3 herein). On 11.03.2014, CCI passed an order under Section 26(1) recording its prima facie satisfaction and accordingly directing the Director General to cause an investigation into the matter and to complete the investigation within a period of 60 days. 3. JCB India Ltd. and JC Bamford Excavators Ltd. together filed W.P.(C) No.2244/2014 with a prayer to quash CCI's order dated 11.03.2014. On 04.04.2014, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order in terms of the order dated 21.01.2014 passed in a similar matter being W.P.(C) No.464/2014 titled Telefonaktibolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr. which is pending on the file of this Court. By virtue of the said interim order dated 04.04.2014 the information as called upon by the Director General of Competition Commission of India has to be given by the petitioners i.e. JCB India Ltd. and JC Bamford Excavators Ltd., however, no final order/report shall be passed either by the Competition Commission of India or by its Director General. Further, in case the Director General of the Competition Commission of India feels that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied) 6. Subsequently, the petitioners filed CM No.16305/2014 seeking clarification of the order dated 26.09.2014 wherein the learned Single Judge ordered that the documents and the records seized by the respondents would also be kept in safe custody. 7. Challenging the abovesaid orders dated 13.10.2014 and 26.09.2014 read with order dated 04.04.2014, the Competition Commission of India filed this appeal contending inter alia that the orders under appeal are contrary to the well settled principle of law that the Court should not interfere with the investigation or guide the manner in which such investigation should be conducted. 8. While submitting that the Director General is duly empowered to conduct the search and seizure in terms of Section 41(3) of the Competition Act, it is vehemently contended by Sh. Sanjay Jain, the learned ASG appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the search and seizure conducted by the Director General on 19.09.2014 would not invalidate the investigation in any manner whatsoever. 9. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal itself is not maintainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India and for matters connected therewith. CCI has been established by the Central Government under Section 7(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 for the purposes of the said Act. Section 7(2) states that CCI shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with a power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue or be sued. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the duties, powers and functions of CCI. As held in CCI vs. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744, the CCI under the scheme of the Act, is vested with inquisitorial, investigative, regulatory, adjudicatory and to a limited extent even advisory jurisdiction. 16. Chapter IV includes Section 19 of the Competition Act which provides for inquiry by the CCI into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in Section 3(1) or Section 4(1) on its own motion or on receipt of any information from any person, consumer or their association or trade association. Inquiry may also be initiated by CCI on a reference made to it by the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority. On receipt of such information/reference or on its own knowle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elated to contravention of the Act expeditiously and even in a time bound programme and that in view of the nature of the controversies arising under the provisions of the Act and larger public interest, the matter should be dealt with and taken to the logical end of pronouncement of final orders without any undue delay since in the event of delay, the very purpose and object of the Act is likely to be frustrated and the possibility of great damage to the open market and resultantly country's economy cannot be ruled out. 21. It may also be pointed out that the Competition Act does not provide for a remedy of appeal against an order passed under Section 26(1) of the Act and only the order passed by the CCI under Section 26(2) is made appealable under Section 53-A. It was made clear in CCI v. SAIL (supra) that the directions passed by CCI in exercise of its powers under Section 26(1) forming a prima facie opinion and issuing a direction to the Director General for investigation cannot be treated appealable by implication. In so far as the further question whether the CCI would be a necessary or at least a proper party in the proceedings before the tribunal in an appeal preferred und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or documents as per the direction of the Commission. This investigation is directed with dual purpose: (a) to collect material and verify the information, as may be, directed by the Commission, (b) to enable the Commission to examine the report upon its submission by the Director General and to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties concerned. No inquiry commences prior to the direction issued to the Director General for conducting the investigation. Therefore, even from the practical point of view, it will be required that undue time is not spent at the preliminary stage of formation of prima facie opinion and the matters are dealt with effectively and expeditiously. 93. We may also usefully note that the functions performed by the Commission under Section 26(1) of the Act are in the nature of preparatory measures in contrast to the decision making process. That is the precise reason that the legislature has used the word 'direction' to be issued to the Director General for investigation in that provision and not that the Commission shall take a decision or pass an order directing inquiry into the allegations made in the reference to the Commission. 23. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
