Delhi High Court

   

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. stayed the order passed by the Competition Commission of India and directed that no recovery of Rs. 223.48 crore shall be affected in respect of MakeMyTrip for the remaining 90% of the penalty amount.

Background

The present petition has been filed by MakeMyTrip (P) Ltd. against the order passed by the NCLAT in Make My Trip (India) (P) Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India and the appeal to NCLAT arisen out of order passed by Competition Commission of India (CCI) in Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) v. MakeMyTrip (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine CCI 58. The NCLAT directed a deposit of 10% of the penalty amount, which was imposed by the CCI as a condition for admission of the appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the NCLAT was completely ambiguous as to the reasons for which the direction for deposit of 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI had been issued. Further, it was submitted that the Court should clarify that if the deposit as directed was made, the recovery of the remaining 90% penalty amount ought to be stayed. It was also submitted that an appeal against the order of the CCI would lie before the NCLAT, under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

Counsel for the respondents submitted that it was clear that subject to deposit of 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI, the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount would remain stayed. Further, it was submitted that the appeal against the order passed by the NCLAT would lie to the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court noted that the total amount which had been fixed as penalty was Rs. 223.48 crores. The Court noted that the appeal filed before the NCLAT was admitted without giving any reasons for directing the deposit of 10% of the penalty amount. Further, no interim protection had been explicitly granted in the impugned order, in respect of the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount. The Court opined that “the appeal before the NCLAT is a first appeal challenging the order passed by the CCI. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, a pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty amount could not have been made for mere admission of the appeal. It was obvious that the intention, which might not be explicitly made clear in the entire order, was against the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount”.

The Court directed that subject to the deposit of 10% of the total penalty amount of Rs. 223.48 crores, in accordance with the order of the CCI, as directed by the NCLAT, no recovery shall be affected in respect of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount.

[MakeMyTrip (P) Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4440, decided on 14-12-2022]


Advocate who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner(s): Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi

Senior Advocate Ramji Srinivasan

Advocate Shashank Gautam

Advocate Rajat Moudgil

Advocate Aashna Manocha

Advocate Akshat Hansari

Advocate Anisha Bohra

Advocate Swapnil Singh

Advocate Sreemoyee Deb

Advocate Anand Sree

For the Respondent(s): ASG N. Venkataraman

Advocate Rajeev Saxena,

Advocate Samar Bansal,

Advocate Chandra Shekhara Bharatho,

Advocate Amritha Chandramouli,

Advocate S. Ram Narayana,

Advocate Rahul Vijay Kumar,

Advocate Madhav Gupta

Advocate Vedant Kapur

Advocate Rajeev Saxena

Advocate Siddharth Luthra

Advocate Saurav Bansal

Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar

Advocate Vaibhav Chouker

Advocate Ela Bali

Advocate Kokila Kumari

Advocate Faiz Siddiqui

Advocate Somdev Tiwari

Advocate Mrityunjay Mahendra

Advocate Abir Roy

Advocate T. Sundar Ramanathan

Advocate Vivek Pandey

Advocate Aman Shankar

Advocate Soham Goswami

Advocate Rohan Arora

Advocate Rukhmini Bobde

Advocate Sonal Gupta

Advocate Ishan Nagar

Advocate Abhishek Thakral

Advocate Amlaan Kumar

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *