Shri Vimal Singh Rajput Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
- Citation86/2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002, the Commission may amend its earlier order only to correct clerical mistakes apparent on the face of the record, and it will do so where a figure or word has been wrongly recorded, such as a stated market-share production figure or a qualifying adverb that misstates the source information. The Commission's own observations and analysis in an order are not a proper subject of rectification under Section 38, so requests to alter them are refused.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Order under Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002 The Commission had closed the instant case vide its order dated 7th January, 2016 passed under Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’). Subsequently, the Informant has moved an application on 29th February, 2016 under Section 38 of the Act seeking certain amendments to the said order of the Commission. Today, the Commission considered the aforesaid application of the Informant and noted that the Informant has sought amendments in respect of certain facts as well as observations/analysis recorded in the impugned order. The Commission notes that paragraph 11 of the impugned order, inter alia, states that ‘….OP has a market share of about 40% with a production of 13.08 cars in 2014-15…’, whereas, the actual number of cars manufactured by OP in 2014-15 was 13.08 lakh. Similarly, in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, it has been stated that ‘As per the information....... it usually has a VTS (Vehicle Tracking System) device which enables the car manufacturer, including OP, to track the location and movement of CCT…’ The Informant has submitted that the information does not state that CCT ‘usually’ has a VTS device; on the contrary, all the CCTs have a VTS device installed upon them. The Commission notes that these are clerical mistakes apparent on the face of record and are required to be rectified. Thus, the following rectifications are allowed under Section 38 of the Act: (a) The numbers and words ‘13.08 cars’ mentioned in para 11 of the impugned order shall be read as ‘13.08 lakh cars’; (b) The word ‘usually’ mentioned in para 2 shall be omitted. The Commission however, does not find any merit in the other requests of the Informant (in para 4.3 to 4.7 of the application) since they relate to observations/analysis of the Commission which cannot be the subject matter of rectification. The Secretary is directed to inform the Informant accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sudhir Mital) (Augustine Peter) Member Member
Sd/- Sd/- (U. C. Nahta) (Justice G. P. Mittal) Member Member
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