The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has fined 14 car manufacturers Rs 2,554 crore for having “imposed absolute restrictive covenants” with authorised dealers and local original equipment suppliers (OES), and “completely foreclosed the aftermarket for supply of spare parts and other diagnostic tools”, reported Mint [Full order].

Advisers of the companies included Amarchand Mangaldas partner Pallavi Shroff for Maruti Suzuki, AZB & Partners partner Samir Gandhi for Toyota Kirloskar, P&A Associates partner Anand Pathak for General Motors, Rajinder Narain & Co managing partner Ravi Nath for BMW amongst of other senior counsel and lawyers, according to the order.

However, the auto makers that include Tata Motors, Mahindra, Maruti Suzuki and others are unlikely to be unduly hurt by the order, argued a column on Mint, in particular since other historical CCI fines have all been challenged in court.

In addition, as reported by Legally India, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) is currently unable to hear appeals because all its members have retired.

However, CNBC’s The Firm show tweeted @thefirmupdate that the Compat may end up reconstituted by 15 September with Justice Singhvi as chairman, so direct challenges of the order in the high courts might not be successful, despite writs by Maruti and Hyundai before the Delhi and Madras high courts respectively challenging the CCI’s jurisdiction.

Advocate Karan Chandhiok tweeted @karanchandhiok that “the lack of a tribunal, may just play to their advantage. Interesting times ahead!"

Click to show 10 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +1 Object -1 K 26 Aug 14, 19:16
Under the circumstances, the remedy is by way of a writ under Article 226 of the constitution. Settled law.
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +2 Object -1 £ 26 Aug 14, 20:11
It would have been good if ll mentioned the complaints and their representatives (if any) as well.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Awake 27 Aug 14, 10:10
What a term "Battery of Lawyers"!
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +2 Object -1 randomanonymous 27 Aug 14, 18:39
Way ahead as I see it - SLPs are filed in the Supreme Court, which will ask Petitioners to deposit some money in Court, in the meanwhile members are appointed to COMPAT, and the SLPs get remanded to COMPAT.
Reply Report to LI
5
Show?
Like +1 Object -2 PA 27 Aug 14, 22:23
So is Anand Pathak still THE authority on competition law in India? Hahahahahahaha
Reply Report to LI
5.1
Like +4 Object -0 bhai... 28 Aug 14, 09:50
Being one of the most respected and notable lawyers in the country doesn't mean he is invincible. By your logic, no 'authority' on any law should lose.
Reply Report to LI
5.2
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 AM 28 Aug 14, 09:57
Yes he is..:)
Reply Report to LI
5.3
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 Goofball 28 Aug 14, 12:03
"XYZ is an awesome lawyer kyunki woh aaj tak koi case nahi haara" - only in movies
Reply Report to LI
5.4
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Yele 30 Aug 14, 07:34
He is. But, came into bad luck with AM on the same ride of the argument. AM bad-luck got transferred by way of induction ;)
Quoting PA:
So is Anand Pathak still THE authority on competition law in India? Hahahahahahaha
Reply Report to LI
6
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Duhh 28 Aug 14, 19:04
Any reason you guys didnt mention Avantika from Khaitan for Mahindra or Atul Dua for Nissan?

Typical!!
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.