Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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