Competition Act, 2002:
s. 53B – Appeal under – Dismissal of – For non-compliance of condition imposed for granting stay of operation of the impugned order – Held: The condition was attached to the order of stay and not for entertaining the appeal – Therefore, non-compliance of the condition, would not warrant dismissal of appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The order of the Competition Commission was challenged by filing appeal under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002. Section 53B confers a right upon any of the aggrieved parties mentioned therein to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. This statutory provision does not impose any condition of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. Therefore, right to file the appeal and have the said appeal decided on merits, if it is filed within the period of limitation, is conferred by the statute and that cannot be taken away by imposing the condition of deposit of an amount leading to dismissal of the main appeal itself if the said condition is not satisfied. Sub-section (3) of Section 53B specifically casts a duty upon the Appellate Tribunal to pass order on appeal, as it thinks fit i.e. either confirming, modifying or setting aside the direction, decision or order appealed against. It is to be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the appeal. It, thus, clearly implies that appeal has to be decided on merits. The Appellate Tribunal, which is the creature of a statute, has to act within the domain prescribed by the law/statutory provision. This provision nowhere stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal can direct the appellant to deposit a certain amount as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal. [Paras 6 and 7][499-F; 501-A-D]
2. In the present case, the condition of deposit was attached to the order of stay. In case of non-compliance of the said condition, the consequence would be that stay has ceased to operate as the condition for stay is not fulfilled. However, noncompliance of the conditional order of stay would have no bearing insofar as the main appeal is concerned. Therefore, at the most, stay could have been vacated. The Appellate Tribunal, thus, had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal itself. The appeal is restored which shall be decided by the Appellate Tribunal on merits. [Paras 6, 7 and 9][499-H; 500-A; 501-E; 502-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.