9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 filed by the Appellant- Informant Maj. Pankaj Rai, Case No. 48 of 2017 filed by Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Case No.49 of 2017 filed by Sh. Lakshmi Reddy Eddula raised competition concerns against 'NIIT Limited', New Delhi (Opposite Party/ OP) common to all the three Informations alleging contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Briefly put, the Informants were aggrieved by the conduct of OP in allegedly abusing its dominant position through its franchise agreements and indulging in anti- competitive practices. The Informants claimed to be the franchisees of the OP in the city of Hyderabad engaged in the business of provision of computer education/ training services. OP was stated to be a well- known brand engaged in the business of computer education having attained the status of global leader in skill and talent development. It was stated that the OP had been offering multi-disciplinary courses in management and training delivery solutions to various institutions spanning across forty Countries. It was alleged that while the Informants, as franchisees of OP were initially granted rights to offer Post Graduate Diploma in Banking Operations (PGDBO) course conducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke Jetking, Aptech etc. Thus, the Commission arrived at a conclusion that the OP was not holding a dominant position in the relevant market. It also found no substance in the allegation under Section 3 of the Act as it noted that OP had resorted to the online mode of delivery through its learning portals to meet the growing requirements of consumers. It also found that OP had been supplying all the necessary course materials and imparting training to the faculty members of the franchisees without discrimination. The differential pricing of courses and revenue sharing agreement by the OP were not found arbitrary taking into consideration the lack of affordability and awareness in non-metros besides other relevant factors. Thus, the Commission found that no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 was made out against the OP in all three informations. It accordingly directed closing of the matter in terms of Section 26(2) of the Act. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Informant Maj. Pankaj Raj in Case No. 47 of 2017 on 6th January, 2020 i.e. after 768 days. Section 53B of the Act providing for appeal, inter alia against any order falling withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 744 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court impugning the impugned order passed by the Commission under Section 26(2) of the Act. Learned Single Judge held that the impugned order could be challenged in appeal before this Appellate Tribunal under the Act which provided alternative remedy. The Writ Petitions thus came to be rejected. The Appellant and other Informants, being dissatisfied with the common order passed in the Writ Petitions rejecting the same, preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 456 & 457 of 2018 before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court which came to be dismissed in terms of order dated 31st December, 2018 with the observations that the discretion exercised by the ld. Single Judge by relegating the Appellants to the statutory Appellate Jurisdiction was not unfounded on fundamental principles of law. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court declined to interfere with the order passed in Writ Jurisdiction by the Hon'ble High Court. 8. As stated hereinabove, the Appellant made strenuous efforts to demonstrate that the Commission dealt with the Informations in gross violation of the principles of fairness and fair play. Reference was made to involvement of Mr. Vinod Dhall in the affa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 of 2004 decided on 7th March, 2007 which echoes the settled proposition of law that a Judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law which can be challenged in any Court at any time, in appeal, revision or writ proceedings etc. It is queer that in the face of the Judgment of the Writ Court confirmed in appeal by the Hon'ble High Court of Telengagna, Hyderabad coupled with subsequent conduct of Appellant in withdrawing the review petition, the Appellant continues to harp on the same tune. It is sad to note that the Appellant has stooped so low as to go even to the extent of maligning the judicial institution by adopting stubborn attitude in regard to its plea which the Hon'ble High Court declined to entertain to exercise its discretion in Writ Jurisdiction. This is writ large on the face of the written submissions made in Para 3(b) which reads as under: "b. Approaching this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi is difficult for the Appellant fighting NIIT which has deep pockets. Hence, approaching this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was only to seek justice when repeated attempts at the High Court failed to impress HC t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in markets and to protect the interest of consumers besides ensuring freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets in India. It seeks to ensure fair competition by prohibiting trade practices which cause appreciable adverse effect on competition in markets within India. A statutory mechanism is provided in the form of establishment of a Commission which is a quasi-judicial body with powers to pass orders, render decisions and give directions envisaged by the legal framework. The Act provides for investigation by the Director General for the Commission. The Commission is empowered to levy penalty upon enterprises guilty of anti-competitive practices as also for contraventions of its orders or for failure to comply with its directions etc. A cursory look at the preamble of the Act, statement of objects and reasons and the provisions of the Act would reveal that the Act is a complete Code with a self contained procedure dealing with inquiry by the Commission including investigation by the Director General, a fair adjudicatory mechanism and a robust appellate mechanism. It provides for expeditious disposal of cases and also prescribes a period of limitation for prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Section 53B(2) of the Act. 13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that having regard to the legislative intent behind the enactment of Act, the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 stand excluded by necessary implication. Thus, in our considered opinion, it is not open to Appellant to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 providing for extension of period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to appeal in hand. 14. On consideration of the ground projected by the Appellant, which is necessarily linked with and not divorced from the merits of the case, we find that no sufficient cause for not filing appeal within prescribed period of 60 days has been advanced and established by the Appellant. It is flabbergasting to note that the Appellant, despite dismissal of his Writ Petition on the ground of efficacious remedy in the form of appeal being available under the Act, remained unfazed and adamant at pursuing remedy before the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Appeal and upon its dismissal sought further judicial intervention in the form of approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally withdrawing the review petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
