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

Must Read

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

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

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -