How many of the CCI's orders has the Compat overturned now?How many of the CCI's orders has the Compat overturned now?

“The Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) on Thursday set aside an order of fair trade regulator Competition Commission of India (CCI) in a case of alleged abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive practices by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and its Indian arm. Dismissing the CCI findings, Compat ordered a fresh probe in the matter,” reported Mint.

“The Compat’s order came over an appeal filed by The Air Cargo Agents Association of India, challenging a CCI order passed on 4 June, 2015, which discharged IATA for alleged anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominance,” according to Mint.

Vaish Associates competition head MM Sharma, senior associate Deepika Rajpal and associate Danish Khan briefed senior advocate Jimy F Pochkhanawalla acted for the Air Cargo Agents Association of India (ACAAI).

TMT Law Practice founding partner Abhishek Malhotra and associates Angad Singh Dugal and Nishita Chaturvedi acted for the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas partner Bharat Budholia and associate Neelambera Sandeepan with counsel Rajshekhar Rao and advocate Sameer Dawar acted for IATA and IATA-India.

The ACAAI had complained to the CCI in 2012, with allegations of limiting and controlling the market and fixing rate of commission payable to cargo agents by airlines and abuse of dominance, against the IATA and IATA-India. The CCI referred the complaint to its investigating arm and this arm – the Director General (DG) – reported back that the IATA’s behaviour did raise competition concerns but that the ACAAI’s specific allegations on limiting and controlling the market and fixing commission rates were not proved.

The CCI agreed with the DG and dismissed the complaint, without taking any decision on the other part of the complaint – the abuse of dominance.

COMPAT chairman GS Singhvi, setting aside the CCI’s June 2015 order on 15 November, stated:

[…] the Commission is duty bound to record reasons, howsoever briefly, for closing a case under Section 26(2), which has admittedly not been done while dealing with the information filed by the appellant. If the Commission was to pass an order under Section 26(2) in respect of the allegation of abuse of dominant position levelled against [IATA and IATA-India], the appellant could have challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 53B(2) read with Section 53A(1) of the Act.

However, the fact of the matter is that no such order was passed by the Commission and as mentioned above, order dated 21.03.2013 does not contain any indication about negation of the allegation of abuse of dominant position levelled by the appellant. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the DG committed serious illegality by not recording a finding on the allegation of abuse of dominant position [….]

Read full order (PDF)

Photo by James Petts

Click to show 14 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 +0 Object -0 Haha 22 Nov 16, 14:03
Rajshekhar Rao is not a partner at CAM... He's an independent counsel who CAM briefed in this matter. He appears in matters for several other firms, so what you've written can't be right
Reply Report to LI
1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 22 Nov 16, 14:12
Thanks, you're right of course - have corrected.
Reply Report to LI
1.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Haha 22 Nov 16, 14:33
Also, Sameer is Raj's junior, not Bharat's...
Reply Report to LI
1.1.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Prachishrivastava 22 Nov 16, 14:50
Thank you.

we have corrected Sameer's designation now.

Best wishes,
Prachi
Reply Report to LI
1.1.1.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -2 Notes Ban 22 Nov 16, 18:31
Oh common. all these are minor mistakes.
Reply Report to LI
1.1.1.2...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Stone Ban 23 Nov 16, 14:21
"Common".

Irony just got up and died.
Reply Report to LI
1.1.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -1 Notes Ban 22 Nov 16, 18:31
Kian baba, please correct law firm name. Its Vaish Associates Advocates not "Vaish Associates".
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +2 Object -4 RMLNLU 22 Nov 16, 15:37
Both Danish Khan and Neelambra Sandeepan are from RMLNLU, Lucknow. Irrespective of which side won the case, good to see RMLNLU alumni gradually picking up..way to go RML!! Cheers.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +5 Object -4 Alias 22 Nov 16, 15:42
Whether its high for MMS or new low for CAM..hard to say.
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +4 Object -1 yawn 22 Nov 16, 19:26
COMPAT is known to be crazy - I'd say win / loss for no one.
Reply Report to LI
5
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Net neutrality 23 Nov 16, 17:10
What's with the heavy editting? It is a new low for CAM. Surprised LI is showing such bias.
Reply Report to LI
5.1
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 kianganz 23 Nov 16, 17:16
Haha - not sure if it's fair to say that losing a deal before Compat is a new low... Seems to happen all the time to pretty much everyone these days, no? :)
Reply Report to LI
5.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Ghagra-Choli 24 Nov 16, 11:02
Fully agree
Reply Report to LI
6
Show?
Like +1 Object -1 @Alias 24 Nov 16, 16:24
Dude chill. People win and lose matters every day.

Besides, this seems like an order against CCI and not the other party.
Reply Report to LI

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