R & R Tech Mach Limited vs Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA & Ors. (Part 2)
- Citation09/2014 (R & R Tech Mach Limited vs Chief)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under section 38(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, the Commission may rectify a mistake apparent from the record in its own order. A recital that arguments were addressed by counsel for parties who were never served with notice and did not appear is such a mistake, and it may be corrected by substituting the correct recital. Rectification under section 38(2)(a) is confined to correcting such a mistake and does not extend to amending the substantive part of the order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CORAM: Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson Mr. M. L. Tayal Member Mr. S. L. Bunker Member Rectification Order under Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002
C. No. 09 of 2014
1. The Commission passed an order in the present case on 29.04.2014 under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the Commission did not find a prima facie case for causing an investigation to be made by the Director General under and accordingly the case was ordered to be closed.
2. In the said order, para 14 read as follows:
“14.The Commission considered all the material on record and the arguments addressed by the Advocates for both the Parties.”
3. It may be noted that while closing the matter and passing the aforesaid order, no notice was issued to the opposite parties and accordingly none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties or addressed any arguments before the Commission.
4. As such, it is apparent that the aforesaid order of the Commission contains a mistake which is apparent from the record in as much as no arguments were addressed by the counsel for the opposite parties.
5. Accordingly, the Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under section 38(2)(a) decides to amend the said order with a view to rectify the mistake which is apparent from the record as noted above. It may also be observed that such rectification does not involve any amendment to the substantive part of the said order.
6. In view of the above, the above paragraph in the order dated 29.04.2014 is ordered to be rectified in the following terms:
C. No. 09 of 2014 “14. The Commission considered all the material on record and the arguments addressed by the Advocate for the Informant.”
7. In the result, the order dated 29.04.2014 shall stand rectified in the aforesaid terms. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file and the Secretary is directed to inform the parties accordingly.
Sd/- (Ashok Chawla) Chairperson
Sd/- (M. L. Tayal) Member
Sd/- (S. L. Bunker) Member
New Delhi Date: 26/06/2014
C. No. 09 of 2014
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