{"id":290137,"date":"2023-04-20T17:00:33","date_gmt":"2023-04-20T11:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=290137"},"modified":"2023-04-25T08:48:47","modified_gmt":"2023-04-25T03:18:47","slug":"cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi:<\/b> A Division bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar, J., and Dr. Alok Srivastava<\/b>* (Technical Member) reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant ‘Geep Industries’ for their anti-competitive behaviour taking into account the mitigating factors such as appellant’s business dynamics and situation in the market.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/b><\/p>\n

In the present matter, the appellant is a private company interested in multiple sectors including trading of dry cell batteries procured from other manufacturers under the trademark ‘GEEP’.<\/p>\n

The appellant entered a ‘Product Supply Agreement’ (PSA) on 01-10-2010 with respondent 3 (Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. – PECIN) who themselves sell self-manufactured batteries under the brand name ‘Panasonic’, to manufacture Zinc and Aluminum chloride dry cell batteries and supplied them to the appellant who would then sell them under their brand name ‘GEEP’. The Respondent 2 (Panasonic Corporation, Japan) and respondent 3 filed a ‘Lesser Penalty Application’ before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under S. 46<\/a> of the Competition Act, 2002<\/a> (the Act) read with Regn. 5 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009<\/a> (the Regulations).<\/p>\n

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) vide order dated 30-08-2018 imposed high penalty of @4% of the average turnover of 3 years on appellant for their anti-competitive behaviour. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated passed by the CCI, the appellant preferred an appeal under S. 53B (1) of the Act, 2002 challenging the same.<\/p>\n

Appellant’s Contentions<\/b><\/p>\n

The appellant contended that Geep is a very small player in the market, therefore, is in no position to substantially influence competition in the said market.<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that CCI(respondent 1) should levy a penalty amount which is proportionate to the offence which would act as a deterrent in the future conduct of appellant in the market rather than wiping off appellant’s business.<\/p>\n

Respondent’s Contentions<\/b><\/p>\n

The CCI (respondent 1) contended that appellant’s anti-competitive behavior can clearly be found from DG’s Investigation and the appellant also violated S. 3 of the Act by not providing any defence to its anti-competitive behavior, therefore, are rightly liable for the penalty levied by the CCI. The CCI further contended that the Lesser Penalty Regulations’ and S. 46 of the Act allows the party preferring the ‘Lesser Penalty Application’ to be let off in a lenient manner, but same cannot be done with the appellant who is found to be contravening the law.<\/p>\n

NCLAT’s observation<\/b><\/p>\n

Relying on S. 3 of the Act, NCLAT observed that “once an agreement has been entered into by parties which is in contravention of the provision of sub-section 1 of section 3, shall be ‘presumed’ to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition, and such behaviour is anti-competitive that would invite penalty under section 27 of the Act.”<\/b><\/p>\n

The NCLAT observed that in the present case, the parties entered PSA for manufacture and supply of dry cell batteries. Clause 4.3 of the PSA restricts the appellant from taking steps detrimental to respondent 3’s market interest particularly with respect to market prices and to comply with the level of prices as agreed after periodic review of market conditions by respondent 3.<\/p>\n

The NCLAT observed that in terms of quantum of penalty which was levied on the appellant regarding the offensive behavior, “should be seen in this context and background, and it would be a mitigating factor.<\/b>” NCLAT further observed that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the mitigating factor while imposing penalty on the appellant should be that the appellant which holds a miniscule share of the total market i.e. less than 1%, was not in a position to influence competition in the market by resorting to price fixation by participating in the ‘bilateral ancillary cartel’, moreover, the penalty imposed on the appellant is certainly exorbitant if we look into the annual turnover and profits of the appellant and it would h be fatal for the appellant’s business and would eventually throw the appellant out of the market.<\/p>\n

Relying on S.N. Mukherjee<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (1990) 4 SCC 594<\/a>, the NCLAT observed that CCI should have given appropriate reasons for imposing a penalty @4% on the appellant which is not apparent from the impugned order.<\/p>\n

NCLAT’s Verdict<\/b><\/p>\n

While reducing the penalty to @1% of the turnover for each year of continuance of the cartel, the NCLAT held that the quantum of penalty should be such that it acts as a deterrent and regulate anti-competitive behaviour.<\/p>\n

“We consider Geep Industries business dynamics and situation in the market to be such that it was neither in a negotiating strength vis-&agrave;-vis PECIN nor having a market share that could actually influence the price in the said market. In view of such a situation, and fully conscious of the fact that Geep Industries has turned losses in the first three years under review by CCI of its anti-competitive behavior, we are of the view that Geep deserves a further reduction in the imposed penalty.”<\/b><\/p>\n

[Pushpa M. v. CCI, 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 143<\/a>, decided on 31-03-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Dr. Alok Srivastava<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Mr. Balaji Subramanian, Ms Aayushi Sharma and Mr. Akash Kundu, Counsel for the Appellant;<\/p>\n

Mr. Naveen R. Nath (Senior Advocate), Mr Avinash Sharma, Ms Akanksha Kapoor and Mr. Siddhant Chaudhary, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1;<\/p>\n

Ms Shama Nargis, Dy. Director (Law) CCI.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“…penalty @1% of the turnover for each year of continuance of the cartel would be appropriate penalty in keeping with the extent and seriousness proportionality of the anti-competitive behavior of Geep Industries.”.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":284626,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[56974,5461,31537,2505,56975,49667,30182,22014],"class_list":["post-290137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-anti-competitive-behaviour","tag-cci","tag-competition-act-2002","tag-Competition_Commission_of_India","tag-geep-industries","tag-mitigating-factors","tag-national-company-law-appellate-tribunal","tag-nclat"],"yoast_head":"\nConsider Mitigating factors while imposing penalties under competition act 2002: NCLAT | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLAT held that mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalties under the Competition Act 2002 for anti-competitive behavior.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLAT held that mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalties under the Competition Act 2002 for anti-competitive behavior.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-04-20T11:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-04-25T03:18:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/\",\"name\":\"Consider Mitigating factors while imposing penalties under competition act 2002: NCLAT | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-04-20T11:30:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-25T03:18:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"NCLAT held that mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalties under the Competition Act 2002 for anti-competitive behavior.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consider Mitigating factors while imposing penalties under competition act 2002: NCLAT | SCC Blog","description":"NCLAT held that mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalties under the Competition Act 2002 for anti-competitive behavior.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries","og_description":"NCLAT held that mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalties under the Competition Act 2002 for anti-competitive behavior.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-04-20T11:30:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-04-25T03:18:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","name":"Consider Mitigating factors while imposing penalties under competition act 2002: NCLAT | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png","datePublished":"2023-04-20T11:30:33+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-25T03:18:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"NCLAT held that mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalties under the Competition Act 2002 for anti-competitive behavior.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/cci-imposed-penalty-anti-competitive-behaviour-appal-nclat-reduce-penalty-mitigating-factors-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mitigating factors should be considered while imposing penalty for anti-competitive behavior: NCLAT imposes 1% penalty of the turnover on Geep Industries"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":291165,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/03\/tribunals-commissions-regulatory-bodies-roundup-april-2023-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":290137,"position":0},"title":"[Monthly Roundup ] Top Stories like Arshad Warsi pump and dump case; Compensation on failure to deliver \u2018Onam Sadya\u2019; Sambhal cold storage collapse incident, and more [April 2023]","author":"Ridhi","date":"May 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore decisions of Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions in India with stories on supply of goods to overseas customers, question of condonation of delay by NCLAT, maintainability of application u\/s 7 of IBC Code, NGT on violation of environmental norms by State, and so on.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"tribunals april 2023","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/tribunals-april-2023.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/tribunals-april-2023.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/tribunals-april-2023.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/tribunals-april-2023.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":196000,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/14\/suspension-of-trading-delisting-of-company-only-mitigating-factors-not-grounds-to-escape-liability-for-flouting-sebi-circulars\/","url_meta":{"origin":290137,"position":1},"title":"Suspension of trading, delisting of company only mitigating factors, not grounds to escape liability for flouting SEBI circulars","author":"Saba","date":"May 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The\u00a0SAT, Mumbai has held that delisting of a company is not a tenable ground to be held unaccountable for non-compliance with SEBI circulars. In\u00a0Pashupati\u00a0Cables Ltd. v. SEBI, the Tribunal heard an appeal against a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs imposed by SEBI on the appellant company\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281470,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/11\/cci-abuse-dominant-position-play-store-policies-penalty-google-appeal-nclat-interim-relief-refused\/","url_meta":{"origin":290137,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT refuses to grant interim relief to Google; directs to deposit 10% of ₹ 936 crore penalty","author":"Editor","date":"January 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: While deciding an appeal filed against the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order imposing a penalty of \u20b9 936.44 crore on the appellant, Google for abusing its dominant position through its Play Store policies, a bench consisting of Rakesh Kumar, J., and Dr.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":288174,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/penalty-on-google-nclat-sets-aside-certain-directions-by-cci-but-upholds-inr-1337-crore-penalty-on-google-for-abuse-of-dominant-position-in-android-mobile-device-ecosystem-legal-news-legal-researc-up\/","url_meta":{"origin":290137,"position":3},"title":"[Google-CCI Case] |NCLAT upholds Rs1,337 crore penalty on google for abuse of dominant position in Android Mobile Device Ecosystem","author":"Editor","date":"March 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Tribunal while upholding the impugned order passed by CCI dated 20-10-2022, set aside 4 key directions issued in paragraphs 617.3, 617.9, 617.10 and 617.7.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-685.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-685.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-685.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-685.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200359,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/20\/appeal-filed-under-ib-code-by-suspended-board-of-directors-held-not-maintainable-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":290137,"position":4},"title":"Appeal filed under I&B Code by \u2018suspended\u2019 Board of Directors\u2014held not maintainable: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) restored the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as initiated against the appellant - Corporate Debtor. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Bank preferred applications under Section 9 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205626,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/pendency-of-case-under-section-138-and-441-ni-act-amounts-to-admission-debt-not-existence-of-dispute-under-ib-code-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":290137,"position":5},"title":"NCLAT | Pendency of case under S. 138 and 141 NI Act amounts to admission debt, not existence of dispute under I&B Code","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Two-Member Bench comprising of S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Bansi Lal Bhat (Member-Judicial), JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi). NCLT had admitted the application filed by the respondent (operational creditor) under Section 9 of the Insolvency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=290137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290137\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=290137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=290137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}