[ad_1]
New Delhi: The NCLAT has set aside an order passed by the fair trading regulator Competition Commission of India ,CCI) in regard of DLF and directed to investigate the matter.
The matter pertains to the dismissal of a complaint by the CCI against DLF and its subsidiary for alleged abuse of dominant position based on the second/supplementary report of the DG.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the CCI was “not empowered to pass an order for further investigation” once its investigation arm – the DG (Director General) in its first report “observed a violation” and “the same cannot be justified”. “.
Based on the second/supplementary DG report, the CCI concluded that “violation of the provisions of the Competition Act” against DLF and its wholly owned subsidiary was not established. DLF Home Developers,
A two-judge bench of NCLAT said, “It is of the opinion that without going into any detail or going into the merits of the case, the order is liable to be set aside as the order has been passed primarily on the supplementary investigation report. DG which was conducted on a void order of the CCI.”
The case is of Regal Garden located in Sector 90. DLF Garden CityGurugram, where an informant had filed a complaint against the realty firm, alleging that clauses in the buyer-seller agreement reflected an abuse of dominance by DLF Home Developers.
The whistleblower had filed a complaint before the CCI alleging it to be “highly unfair and discriminatory”, however, the fair trade regulator closed it on August 31, 2018 after observing that there was no violation.
The CCI order was subsequently challenged before the NCLAT, an appellate authority on the fair trading regulator, which set aside the order after more than four years and sent the matter back for re-examination.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) “remanded” the matter “back” to the CCI for passing a fresh order based on the first report filed by the DG’s office.
It added, “CCI is required to examine the entire matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” Is.”
The NCLAT had observed that the DG had conducted the investigation in compliance with the order of the CCI and in its report had shown violation of provision under section 4 of the Act by DLF and its subsidiary.
“Even though the DG in its inquiry report dated March 2016 took note of the contravention committed by the respondents under Section 4 of the Act, the CCI by its order dated November 9, 2016 directed the DG to conduct further investigation.”
And after receipt of the second/supplementary DG report, the CCI passed the order concluding that the violation of the provisions under section 4 of the Act has not been established in the matter.
Questioning CCI’s direction for second/supplementary investigation, the NCLAT observed: “Further investigation is required in accordance with the Act in a case of closure and not in a case where the DG has violated the provisions of the Act by a party/parties”. submitted a report showing the violation of
[ad_2]
Source link