Competition Act | Order Of Inquiry U/S 26 Does Not Affect Parties’ Rights, Opportunity Of Hearing Not Mandatory

Case: MS. Shree Shivam Corporation Through Its Sole Propeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi VS Competition Commission Of India

Coram: Justice AP Thaker

Case No.: C/SCA/11152/2020

Court Observation: “After submission of the Report by the Inquiry Officer i.e. Director General, the person concerned against whom any report is made, will also get an opportunity to defend and place his case before the Commission. At that stage, if no any opportunity of hearing is afforded, then, definitely the person concerned against whom any adverse order is passed, has every right to challenge the same on various grounds, one of which may be breach of natural justice.”

“Further, as observed earlier in various decisions, it is the prerogative of the Commission to invite any person or sought information from any person for forming prima facie opinion as to whether any inquiry contemplated under Section 26(1) of the Act is necessary or not. Such action of the Commission cannot be said to be bias one or giving any right to other person against whom any order of inquiry is passed.”

Previous Posts

Matrimonial Offences Including S.498A IPC May Be Quashed In Exercise Of Powers U/S 482 CrPC When Parties Arrive At Settlement: J&K&L High Court

State Does Not Have Unlimited Resources, Institutions That Waive Arrears To Seek Grant-In-Aid Can’t Be Permitted To Take U-Turn: Uttarakhand HC

Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail U/S 439(1) Cannot Be Construed To Mean “In Custody” While Reckoning Period For Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Court In Area Where Minor Ordinarily Resides Has Jurisdiction U/S 25 Guardians & Wards Act: Uttarakhand High Court

Property Dispute Between Mother & Child Does Not Fall Under Explanation (c) To S.7(1) Family Courts Act, Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred: Kerala High Court

Keywords

Competition Act, Opportunity Of Hearing