Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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