Excel for
Chartered Accountants

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
LPA 491/2014

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA and ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Mr. Aditya  Vijay Kumar, Mr. Abhimanyu Chopra, Mr. Saket Bisani and Mr. Vidul Mohan,   Advs.

                                                                                          Versus

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA and ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.N. Haksar and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advs. with Mr.  Tarun Gulati and Mr. Neil Hildreth, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

ORDER
12.08.2014

Caveat No.621/2014

Learned counsel for the respondents / caveators has appeared. The caveat stands disposed of.

CM No.11925/2014 (for exemptions)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

CM No.11924/2014 (for condonation of delay)

Heard both parties. Delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

LPA No.491/2014

This appeal is preferred by the Competition Commission of India (for short “Commission”) aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge granting interim stay of the order dated 28.02.2014 impugned in W.P.(C) No.2815/2014. By the said order dated 28.02.2014, the Commission initiated investigation against the first respondent herein/writ petitioner in exercise of the power conferred under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.

It is vehemently contended by Shri Sanjay Jain, the learned ASG appearing for the appellant that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to respondent No.1 by directing investigation under Section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002 and therefore, no proceeding can be maintained against the order dated 28.02.2014 on any ground whatsoever. Thus, according to the learned ASG, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and at any rate, the learned Single Judge ought not to have stayed the investigation. In support of the said contention, the learned ASG placed reliance upon various decisions including Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India, (2010) 10 SCC 744.

We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

At the outset, it is to be noticed that the order under appeal was passed at the stage of admission of the writ petition. While granting time to the respondent/appellant herein to file their counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to stay the investigation for the time being.

Having regard to the fact that the matter is yet to be heard on merits by the learned Single Judge, we do not feel it proper to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion on any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. We are of the view that the proper course for the appellant is to file the counter affidavit before the
learned Single Judge along with an appropriate application to vacate/vary the interim stay. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,  the appeal is disposed of leaving it open to the appellants to file the counter affidavit along with an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge.

List the writ petition along with CM No.5836/2014 before the learned Single Judge on 16th September, 2014 by which date the counsels for both the parties undertake to complete the pleadings.

Chief Justice,     Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

August 12, 2014

Related Update:
Competition Commission Order dated 28-02-2014 Click Here >>
Delhi HC Single Judge Order Staying CCI Investigation of ICAI CPE Seminars Click Here >>

Delhi High Court Division Bench Rejects Competition Commission India Writ Against ICAI CPE Seminar Investigation |12-08-2014|