Skip to main content

A person who has not suffered an invasion of his legal rights as a consumer cannot move CCI for violation of Competition law

In Samir Agrawal vs CCI, a person claiming to be an independent legal practitioner, filed Information with the Competition Commission of India alleging contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 in as much as the cab aggregators viz Ola and Uber used their respective algorithmic to facilitate price fixing between drivers.

The allegation being rejected by the NCLT, appeal was filed before the NCLAT. The NCLAT while agreeing with the NCLT, further decided that this case merits looking into the the procedure governing inquiry by the Commission in allegations of anti-competitive agreements, including price fixation, cartelisation and abuse of dominant position. Section 19 of the Act provides for inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise. The NCLAT observed that Under this Section, the Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in sub- section (1) of Section 3 or sub-section (1) of Section 4 through either of the following modes:-

(a) on its own motion; or
(b) on receipt of any information from any person, consumer or their association or trade association; or (c) a reference made to it by the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority

On a plain reading of this provision, it is abundantly clear that the Commission is empowered to take cognizance of any allegation of alleged contravention of the aforestated provisions of the Act on its own motion or on the basis of the complaint or on the basis of reference made to it by the appropriate Government or statutory authority. Information into allegations of alleged contravention of such provision may be filed by any person, consumer or their association or trade association. 

The question that arises for consideration is whether a ‘person’ would mean any natural person irrespective of he being a consumer who has suffered invasion of his legal rights or a person whose legal rights have been or are likely to be jeopardised by the alleged anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position.

The NCLAT further held that it is true that the concept of locus standi has been diluted to some extent by allowing public interest litigation, class action and actions initiated at the hands of consumer and trade associations. Even the whistle blowers have been clothed with the right to seek redressal of grievances affecting public interest byenacting a proper legal framework. However, the fact remains that when a statute like the Competition Act specifically provides for the mode of taking cognizance of allegations regarding contravention of provisions relating to certain anti-competitive agreement and abuse of dominant position by an enterprise in a particular manner and at the instance of a person apart from other modes viz. suo motu or upon a reference from the competitive government or authority, reference to receipt of any information from any person in section 19(1) (a) of the Act has necessarily to be construed as a reference to a person who has suffered invasion of his legal rights as a consumer or beneficiary of healthy competitive practices. Any other interpretation would make room for unscrupulous people to rake issues of anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position targeting some enterprises with oblique motives. In the instant case, the Informant claims to be an Independent Law-Practitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that he has suffered a legal injury at the hands of Ola and Uber as a consumer or as a member of any consumer or trade association. Not even a solitary events of the Informant of being a victim of unfair price fixation mechanism at the hands of Ola and Uber or having suffered on account of abuse of dominant position of either of the two enterprises have been brought to the notice of this Appellate Tribunal. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the Informant has no locus standi to maintain an action qua the alleged contravention of Act.




Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more