COMPAT by its order dated July 4, 2016 upheld order passed by
the Competition Commission of India ("CCI/the
Commission") wherein it refused to entertain an appeal
challenging the order passed by the Director General (DG) to treat
certain documents submitted by TPM Consultants Pvt. Ltd (Appellant)
confidential for all times under Regulation 35(8) of the CCI
(General) Regulations, 2009.
During an investigation ordered by the Commission in relation to
the alleged cartelization of price by the domestic tyre
manufacturing companies, the DG sent notice to the appellant under
Section 41 of the Act, requiring it to furnish some information/
documents. In compliance, the appellant filed documents and
requested them to be treated as confidential in terms of Regulation
35 of the Regulations. DG disposing the request took cognizance of
Regulation 35(3) and 35(9) of the Regulations and granted
confidentiality of documents till the completion of proceedings
before the Commission. Hence, the Appellant requested the
Commission to grant confidentiality to the aforesaid
information/documents for all times to come.
The Commission found DG's observations just and reasonable
and thus refused to grant confidentiality to documents for all
Thereafter, an appeal was filed in COMPAT challenging the order
passed by the CCI. It was observed by COMPAT that the Tribunal has
the jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals only against orders
passed by the Commission under Section 53A(1)(a) and Regulation
35(8) or (10) do not find mention therein. In reply, appellant
submitted that the impugned order should be treated as one made
under Section 26.COMPAT considering all the material and facts of
the case, and the laws laid down by the Supreme Court held that the
appeal was not maintainable under Section 53A. COMPAT further
ordered that the period of treatment of confidentiality shall be
till completion of the proceedings before the CCI.
(Source: Order dated July 4, 2016. For full text see COMPAT
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should
be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in
this article are solely of the authors of this article.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The recent decision of Competition Appellate Tribunal in the matter of M/s Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd & Ors referring the complaint of Meru, which had been earlier rejected by Competition Commission of India, . . .
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).