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
