Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Rules Competition Act Applicable to Government Companies, Rejects Exemption Claim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on 15th June, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Competition Act, 2002 applies to government companies and rejected the claim for exemption put forth by such entities. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasized that government companies must adhere to the standards of fairness, avoid discrimination, and not act solely as profit-making engines. The court stated, "The Act cannot result in transforming the appellants into mere profit-making engines or require them to be oblivious to their obligations under the Constitution." The judgment settles a long-standing debate surrounding the applicability of the Competition Act to government companies and clarifies their obligations under the law.

The court's ruling came in response to a conflict between Section 28 of the Competition Act and Section 32 of the Nationalisation Act, which governs monopolies in the coal industry. Section 28 grants the Competition Commission of India (CCI) the power to order division of an enterprise enjoying a dominant position, ensuring prevention of abuse of such position. However, government companies argued that the Nationalisation Act, which vests rights and powers in them, was in conflict with the Competition Act, and therefore exempted them from its applicability.

Rejecting this claim, the court emphasized that the power to order division conferred on the CCI was intended to prevent abuse of dominant position and ensure fair competition. Justice Joseph remarked, "Parliament has intended, in order to ensure the proper implementation of the Act, to confer power to order division of an enterprise enjoying dominant power. This would include the appellants as well." The judgment clarified that while government companies should fulfill their objectives outlined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, they must also meet the standards of fairness and avoid discriminatory practices.

The court further highlighted that the Competition Act provides a specialized forum, the CCI, which is an expert body equipped to handle cases related to abuse of dominant position. It also underscored the significance of judicial review, where government companies are held accountable for their actions and must demonstrate fairness in their conduct.

The judgment sets a precedent by affirming the applicability of the Competition Act to government companies, ensuring fair competition and preventing abuse of dominant position in all sectors. This decision will have far-reaching implications for various industries and underscores the court's commitment to upholding the principles of fair competition in the country.

The case has now been remitted for further consideration on its merits, and related interlocutory applications and the contempt petition have been listed for hearing at a later date.

Date of Decision: June 15, 2023

COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR. VS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/15-Jun-2023-COAL-INDIA-LIMITED-Vs-COMPETITION-COMMISSSION-SC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News