Case Law Details
CASE LAWS DETAILS
DECIDED BY: COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI,
IN THE CASE OF: Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., APPEAL NO: Appeal No. 1 of 2009, DECIDED ON February 15, 2010
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
34. Coming to the merits of the case, the first question that needs to be decided is whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to present its case. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent that there is no requirement of the Commission to invite parties to present their point of view before forming a prima- facie opinion. But the Commission may for the purpose of satisfying itself on any aspect permit the parties to present their point of view. This is clear from sub-regulation 5(c) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. In fact, in the present case, the respondent was granted opportunity to place materials and to make detailed submission. Further, the Commission felt that before forming prima- facie opinion it was necessary to obtain the views of the appellant, who was the defendant in the case before the Commission. It is certainly open to the Commission to adopt a particular procedure because ultimately in view of the Section 36 of the Act it has powers to regulate its own procedure and is to be guided by the principles of natural justice. Commission after elaborate deliberation decided to ask appellant to indicate its view and give its comments. After having done that, it is not open to the Commission to abandon the opportunity granted midway. Therefore, the moot question is whether as noted above adequate opportunity was granted. This has to be considered in the background of the principles of natural justice. The rules of natural justice intend to invest law with fairness and secure justice. Negatively put it prevents miscarriage of justice. They aim at preventing not only bias against any person, but also prevent the possibility of such bias. The opportunity granted should be fair and real and not illusory. Where there is violation of natural justice, no resultant or independent prejudice need to be shown, as denial of justice is, in itself sufficient prejudice and it is no answer that even with observance of natural justice the same conclusion would have been reached. In brief, the essential requirement of natural justice is reasonable opportunity to the person charged with which in turn, means (a) a reasonable notice; (b) an adequate notice; (c) a fair consideration of the explanation; and (d) passing of a speaking order. [see: Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal And Other (AIR 1981 SC 606) and Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (AIR 1974 SC 87).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
