Bombay High Court: No Overlapping Jurisdiction of CCI and Arbitral Tribunal

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

The Bombay High Court has settled the long-term dispute in the agri-business. The judgement also serves as a precedent. It has ruled that there exists no overlap between the jurisdiction of CCI and Arbitral Tribunal.

Brief Facts of the Case

The respondent, Mahyco Monsanto India Ltd., is an agri-business giant. It sub-licenses the transgenic cotton variety seeds impregnated with Bt. Genes. The petitioner, Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., signed a contract in 2005 for the sale of seeds in Maharashtra. For the same, the petitioners must pay ‘trait value’ or patent fee on revenue generated from the sale of seeds.

In January 2018, the respondents approached the arbitral tribunal on non-receiving of the payment. The tribunal declared an award of Rs. 138 crore for the respondents. In the meantime, the validity of the agreement was being adjudicated before CCI. Hence, the petitioners challenged the award on the grounds of jurisdiction and violations of public policy.

Submissions before the Court

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the computation of the trait fee was based on the number of seeds. However, the respondent prima facie charged an excessive, unreasonable and discriminatory trait value. Hence, the Sub- License Agreement (SLA) was void under section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Moreover, the validity of the SLA was a subject matter in the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India. The monetary claims before the arbitral tribunal were based on the SLA. In turn, no matter under SLA was arbitrable.

The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that the Government of India had filed complaints against such agreements. They termed it as anti-competitive and abuse of dominance under various sections of Competition Act, 2002. The Act also expressly and impliedly excludes adjudication of competition law disputes through arbitration.

Court’s Observation

The Court noted that the tribunal had powers to adjudicate the right and liabilities as under agreement. This would relate to right in personam and not right in rem. Alternatively, had the tribunal dismissed the matter, the respondent would be left with no remedy. The outcome of the CCI proceedings, in no manner, would pay the amount to the respondents. The tribunal has abided by the legal principle – ubi jus ibi remedium.

It also emphasized that the jurisdiction to grant any monetary claim would be an action in personam. The jurisdiction to pass any such action is vested with the Civil Court or Arbitral Tribunal. Further, the petitioner would be entitled to receive compensation for any such amount if the CCI concludes it to be a violation. However, no remedy can be denied to the respondents at a nascent stage.

The Court has rejected the petitioner’s submissions under Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002. The provision excludes Civil Courts and Arbitral Tribunals to decide on matters empowered to the CCI. Hence, there lies a clear distinction based on the nature of the subject matter in both the proceedings. The Court said:

“The arbitral tribunal cannot decide the issue whether the said 2015 SLA was anti-competitive or was in violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act or not and deserves to be declared as void or required modification but has the power to award monetary claim under such agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has laid down the rationale from its observations. It asserted that the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India does not overlap with that of an Arbitral Tribunal.

Court’s Order

Justice R. D. Dhanuka pronounced the judgement. The Court has upheld the arbitral award. It stated, “This Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned award nor any patent illegality in the impugned award. The petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.”


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

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

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -