•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Compat fines Cyril Amarchand client historic Rs 5 lakh for dodgy affidavit (3 years after SAM-CLB affidavit debacle)

CAmarchand: Taxed by Compat
CAmarchand: Taxed by Compat

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM) couldn’t save apparel exporter, the Tavoy Group, from the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) imposing Rs 5 lakh in costs against it.

According to its order, the Compat was miffed that Tavoy’s writ petition before the Bombay high court was pending at the time of the COMPAT hearing, a fact which it had allegedly suppressed from COMPAT.

The order, passed by COMPAT’s newly appointed member Rajeev Kher and chairman GS Singhvi on Monday, ordered Tavoy to pay Rs 5 lakh to the respondent The Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGCI).

It is believed that this is the highest cost ever imposed by the COMPAT.

CAM Delhi partner Rahul Goel had instructed advocate Neeraj Choudhary for Tavoy, which had appealed against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) decision clearing ECGCI of allegations of abuse of a dominant position.

Tavoy had claimed that the ECGCI had practically blacklisted it from availing credit by placing its name, and the name of its sister concerns, on a “Specific Approval List” after Tavoy had defaulted repaying its loans. The Specific Approval List warns lenders about entities who have defaulted in repayment of their loans.

In its appeal Tavoy had made a false statement on affidavit that it had not approached any other forum for relief.

The bench in its order dismissed Tavoy’s appeal on merit, and also imposed costs stating:

“What is most striking is that even though column 10 of the form prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Form and fee for filing an appeal and fee for filing compensation applications) Rules, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Rules’), makes it mandatory for an appellant to declare that it had not previously filed any writ petition or suit regarding the matter in respect of which the appeal is preferred before any court or any other authority nor anysuch writ petition or suit is pending before any of them, the appellants have deliberately made a false statement in paragraph 11 of the memo of appeal that it had not filed any writ petition in respect of that matter of appeal.”
“For approaching the Commission and the Tribunal with unclean hands, the appellants are saddled with cost of Rs 5 Lacs, which shall be paid to Respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from today.”

Goel declined to comment, as the firm was yet to recieve a certified copy of the COMPAT order.

in 2012 erstwhile Amarchand Mangaldas' Delhi office, which is now Shardul Amarchand, was slapped with Rs 50,000 in costs on its client and Rs 50,000 in a fine against the law firm by the Company Law Board (CLB), for making mistakes with affidavits, for which the firm immediately fired two associates.

Compat order slaps CAM on wrist

Hat-tip to a reader for pointing us to the story.

Photo credit Philip Taylor / BY CC

Click to show 72 comments
at your own risk
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.