Case Law Details
Amit Mittal Vs DLF Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only direct further investigation in a case of closure and not where DG has submitted report showing contravention of Competition Act 2002 by parties.
Facts- The present appeal has been preferred by the Informant under Section 53(B) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against an order dated 31st August, 2018 passed under Section 26(6) of the Competition Act by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCI’) in Case No.73/2014. By the impugned order the CCI held that contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act was not established in the case hence the case was ordered to be closed under Section 26(6) of the Act.
Conclusion- Provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act clarifies that CCI is having very limited jurisdiction to direct for further investigation that too in a case as per Section 26(5) of the Act if the DG recommends that there is no contravention of the Act then Commission shall invite objections or suggestions under Section 26(5) and thereafter under sub-section (7) of Section 26 of the Act after consideration of objections and suggestions referred to in sub-section (5) further investigation is necessary only then direct for further investigation.
Further investigation as per Act is required in a case of closure not in a case where DG has submitted report showing contravention of provisions of the Act by a party/parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
