Executives And Directors Can Now Be Investigated By The Competition Commission Of India

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Case Name: Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. 

Delhi High Court gave a new set of teeth to Competition Commission of India. This will allow it to investigate the Directors and Executives of a company for their involvement in any anti-competitive conduct.

Facts of the Case

Agriculture Ministry and National Seeds Association of India (NSAI) along with certain other organizations had moved to the Competition Commission of India in 2016 highlighting various incidents of anti-competitive conduct performed by US-based giant in the seed market in India. Convinced by the Information provided by Informant that there is enough evidence for a detailed investigation against Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India), Competition Commission of India (CCI) ordered a detailed investigation and came to the conclusion that indeed Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) violated the Competition law norms in India. While passing this order Competition Commission also ordered probe against the directors or officers of the company under section 27 of the Competition Act,2002.

Aggrieved by this decision, Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) appealed to the Delhi High Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Monsanto’s appeal. Monsanto appealed against the same order by way of a Letters a Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.

The main Contention of Mohanto raised by the appellant before the Division Bench was that penalty was to be imposed on the ‘turnover’ which would not apply to an individual, who has been proceeded against, imposing a penalty.

Verdict of the Case

Division Bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V.K Rao rejected the contention of the Appellant and dismissed their letters patent appeal. Moreover, it was clearly held that Officers or Directors of a company can be probed by the Competition Commission of India, and can also be held liable if they were the “key persons who were Incharge and responsible” for anti-competitive conduct of the company. The bench further said that 

“Turnover, in the context of officers/directors has to be interpreted as the income of the officers/directors from the company, as there cannot be an income of an officer/director from an infringing product.”

Furthermore, Bench also observed that

 “section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002, makes it clear that if CCI finds any contravention of the provisions, it “can pass orders against an ‘enterprise’ and a ‘person’ i.e. an individual, who has been proceeded against, imposing penalty.”

Author’s Opinion

This judgment is a welcome decision as this will give Competition Commission of India more power to punish those individual natural persons who are responsible for violating free competition in the market. This decision will also deter business-men in India from entering into anti-competitive practices such as bid-rigging, anti-competitive contracts, abuse of dominant position etc.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -