✦ Supreme Court of India

SAMIR AGRAWAL v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & Ors.

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

the appeal is disposed of in terms of this judgment

Judgment

1.4 The 2009 Regulations also point in the same direction, inasmuch as Regulation 10, does not require the informant to state how he is personally aggrieved by the contravention of the Act, but only requires a statement of facts and details of the alleged contravention to be set out in the information filed. Also, Regulation 25 shows that public interest must be foremost in the consideration of the CCI when an application is made to it in writing that a person or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and such person may therefore be allowed to take part in the proceedings. What is also extremely important is Regulation 35, by which the CCI must maintain confidentiality of the identity of an informant on a request made to it in writing, so that such informant be free from harassment by persons involved in contravening the Act. [Para 16][1067-E- G]

1.5 Given the context of the Act in which the CCI and the NCLAT deal with practices which have an adverse effect on competition in derogation of the interest of consumers, it is clear that the Act vests powers in the CCI and enables it to act in rem, in public interest. This would make it clear that a “person aggrieved” must, in the context of the Act, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly. Further, it is not without significance that the expressions used in Sections 53B and 53T of the Act are “any person”, thereby signifying that all persons who bring to the CCI information of practices that are contrary to the provisions of the Act, could be said to be aggrieved by an adverse order of the CCI in case it refuses to act upon the information supplied. By way of contrast, Section 53N(3) speaks of making payment to an applicant as compensation for the loss or damage caused to the applicant as a result of any contravention of the provisions of Chapter II of the Act, having been committed by an enterprise. By this sub-section, clearly, therefore, “any person” who makes an application for compensation, under sub- section (1) of Section 53N of the Act, would refer only to persons who have suffered loss or damage, thereby, qualifying the expression “any person” as being a person who has suffered loss or damage. Thus, the preliminary objections against the Informant/Appellant filing Information before the CCI and filing an appeal before the NCLAT are rejected. [Para 20][1069-E-H; 1070-A-B] SAMIR AGRAWAL v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 1047

1.6 When the CCI performs inquisitorial, as opposed to adjudicatory functions, the doors of approaching the CCI and the appellate authority, i.e., the NCLAT, must be kept wide open in public interest, so as to subserve the high public purpose of the Act. [Para 22][1073-D-E]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: the appeal is disposed of in terms of this judgment

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Competition Act, 2002 — ss. 2(l), 26(2); Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007; Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 — s. 2; Company Secretaries Act, 1980 — s. 2; Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 — s. 2; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 2020). ← Search more judgments