Author: kkslawoffices

The Bombay High Court (‘HC’), in writ petitions filed by Asianet Star Communications Private Limited, Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited, Star India Private Limited against Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) and Asianet Digital Network (P) Ltd (‘ADNPL’), directed CCI to not permit or direct any coercive action against petitioners until the next hearing. Further, the Director General (‘DG’) of CCI is directed to keep all the information confidential.

The writs came against an order of CCI, u/s- 26(1), directing the DG to investigate the petitioners’ conduct on alleged anti-competitive practices. The petitioners’ contention was that the complaint was related to The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, whereby according to proviso of Section 7(4) “…offer of discounts, if any, to distributors of television channels, shall be on the basis of fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms”, therefore, it should have been first placed before Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

The SBICAP Trustee Company, Axis Trustee and IDBI Trusteeship, the trustee units of SBI, Axis and IDBI Banks respectively, are under investigation of Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’), for cartelisation, based on a complaint by Muthoot Finance. These debenture trustees are needed u/s 71(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, for issuing debentures beyond 500. Incidentally, all these three SBICAP Trustee Company, Axis Trustee and IDBI Trusteeship are founding members of Trustees Association of India (‘TAI’). TAI substantially enhanced its fee for assisting companies raising debt and prevented anyone from going below this figure.

A reference from Railways to CCI about an alleged cartelisation in High Performance Polyamide (‘HPPA’) and Self Lubricating Polyester Resin (‘SLPR’) Bushes proved cartelisation in supply of these products to Indian Railways.

After investigation, CCI has imposed a total penalty of Rs. 1.16 Crores even after 4 applicants got relief under leniency scheme after applying for it.

Living up to its motto “Fair Competition for Greater Good”, the CCI as a follow up on the investigation by its investigation arm, the Director General, has sought the basis of setting the rates of medicines and other medical devices. Coming in the wake of the 2021 report of CCI on ‘Market Study on the Pharmaceutical Sector in India’ showing huge profiteering and another PIL seeking enforcement of Clinical Establishment Rules, 2012 with the SC, seeking response from the Government and showing concern in the matter, it may be a step in the right direction.

The housekeeping job for repealing obsolete and redundant laws has indeed been accelerated by the present Government after the constitution of a Two-Member committee specifically for the job in 2014.

After identification of 1824 obsolete Acts, including 229 State Acts, a total of 1486 obsolete and redundant laws have since been repealed by the Government of India and another 75 have been repealed by the State Governments since 2014 till date or in about 7 years period.

In comparison, 1367 obsolete laws were repealed from 1950 till 2014 i.e. in 64 years.

Upholding the right of unmarried daughters, to claim maintenance from their parents, the Chhattisgarh High Court (‘HC’), by order dated 21.03.2022, sets aside the order of Family Court (‘FC’), Durg, which dismissed the claim of an unmarried daughter, regarding marriage expenses, from her father. The HC, while citing Section 3(b) (ii) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, said, “The right includes the reasonable expenses of marriage of daughter and expenses incident to her marriage”, and thereby remanded the matter back to FC to be heard on merits.

The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) green flagged Central government’s decision to take over the management of the Delhi Gymkhana Club (‘Club’), initially registered as a Section 8 company with specific objects related to sports and pastimes, for mismanagement of affairs. Over the years, the Club digressed from its objects and got into the grip of a clique from bureaucracy and army, with members continuing in the general committee for longer intervals. NCLT remarked that, “Some have been continuing from one period to another, giving credence to the stand of the central government that the club is run in the nature of ‘parivarvaad’ (nepotism), which cannot be countenanced in the light of the provision of the Companies Act.”

For a default in repayment of Rs 431.94 crores loan from Union Bank of India, NCLT allowed initiation of insolvency proceedings and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional for insolvency of Supertech.

In one of the first actions by CCPA, fined of Rs 1 lakhs each Paytm Mall & Snapdeal for selling non standard pressure cookers. After repeal of Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘CPA’) provided for establishment of a Central Consumer Protection Authority (‘CCPA’) having effective powers of disciplining different malpractices including misleading advertisements (Section 18 (1) (d)) and unfair trade practices (Section 18 (2) (l)).

Fining Paytm mall and Snapdeal indulging in promotion of non-standard pressure cookers, CCPA directed these e-commerce platforms to reimburse the amount paid by the consumers. Overruling the claim of the companies, that they are mere intermediaries as per IT Act, 2000 with the responsibility of content lying with seller and not on them, CCPA placed its reliance on Rule 4(3) of Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, which states that “no e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice whether in the course of business on its platform or otherwise.”

This indicates a dawn of new era, where rights of consumer are being strengthened and showing results on the ground.

On a complaint filed by Digital News Publishers Association, Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) orders probe in to abuse of dominant position by Google for unfairly & unilaterally deciding the amounts payable to the publishers of Digital Ads. Because of similarity of allegations, CCI clubbed this matter with an ongoing matter filed by Indian Newspaper Society.