All India Kissan Sabha (AIKS) Vs Monsanto Inc, USA, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation Vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (MMBL), National Seed Association of India (NSAI) Vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (MMBL)
- Citation03/2016, Ref. 01/2016 and 10/2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where information or a reference under section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 raises allegations substantially similar to those already directed to investigation under section 26(1), and the opposite parties are the same, the Commission may, under the proviso to section 26(1) read with Regulation 27 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, club the later cases with the earlier ones and direct the Director General to investigate them together and file a consolidated investigation report. Where the Commission has allowed a rectification of a party's name in one case, any reference to that party in a connected case clubbed with it is to be read as referring to the rectified name.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Filed by: Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, State of Telangana
Against: OP-1 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (MMBL) OP-2 Monsanto Inc, USA. OP-3 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd (Mahyco) OP-4 Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (MHPL)
With Case No: 10/2016
Filed by: National Seed Association of India (NSAI)
Against: OP-1 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (MMBL) OP-2 Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (MHPL) OP-3 Monsanto Inc., USA (MIU) OP-4 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd (MAHYCO)
for Greater Good Order under section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
Today, Case No. 10 of 2015 has been listed for the consideration of the Commission. With the permission of the Chair, Case No. 03 of 2016 and Reference case No.01 of 2016 were also considered today.
2. The Information in Case No. 03 of 2016 has been filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) by All India Kisan Sabha (Informant), against Monsanto Inc., U.S.A., Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. and Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd., alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Subsequently, the Informant has also filed additional documents on 21st January, 2016.
3. Further, Reference Case No. 01 of 2016 has been referred under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, State of Telangana against Mahyco Monsanto Biotech India Ltd., Monsanto Inc, U.S.A., Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Private Ltd. and Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd., alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
4. Also, Information in Case No. 10 of 2015 has been filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Act by National Seed Association of India (Informant) against Mahyco Monsanto Biotech India Ltd., Monsanto Holding Pvt. Ltd. Monsanto Inc., U.S.A., Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd., alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
5. In all these cases, allegations have been made, inter alia, in connection with the OPs imposing unreasonable and restrictive clauses in the sub-licensee agreements through which Bt Technology is sub-licensed to the seed manufacturing companies, charging unfair trait values, and leveraging their dominant position in Bt cotton technology market for expanding their presence in Bt cotton seeds market.
6. The Commission notes that it had already passed a common order dated 10th February 2016 under Section 26 (1) of the Act in Ref. Case No. 2 of 2015 and Case No. 107 of 2015, directing the Director General (‘DG’) to cause an investigation into the issues/allegations that are substantially similar to those raised in the instant cases. The for Greater Good Opposite Parties against whom allegations have been made in the instant cases are also the same as in the earlier cases. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act read with Regulation 27 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, the Commission decides to club the present cases with Ref. Case No. 2 of 2015 and Case No. 107 of 2015. The DG shall investigate the instant cases along with the other two said cases and file a consolidated investigation report.
7. Further, in view of the rectification allowed vide order dated 18th February 2016 in Case No. 107 of 2015, any reference to ‘Monsanto Inc. USA’ shall be read as ‘Monsanto Company’.
8. The Secretary is directed to communicate this order to DG along with copies of the Information/Reference and submissions of the parties, accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (S. L. Bunker) (Sudhir Mital) (Augustine Peter) Member Member Member
Sd/- Sd/- (U. C. Nahta) (Justice G. P. Mittal) Member Member Sd/- (Devender Kumar Sikri) Chairperson
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free