Section 53 of The Competition Act / Aggrieved Person II / The Revival of Ray LVII

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Samir Agarwal sought, by an information filed, CCI to initiate an inquiry, under Section 26(2) of The Competition Act, 2002, into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of Ola and Uber. Shri Rajshekhar Rao, appearing on behalf of Ola, submitted, Samir cannot be said to be a ‘person aggrieved’ for the purpose of sections 53B and 53T. He relied heavily upon Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, (1970) 2 SCC 484. A ‘person aggrieved’ must, in the context of The Competition Act, 2002, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly, as was done in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi. Thus, the objection is rejected. However, it has been found, Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices. We see no reason to interfere.

– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Samir Agarwal v. Competition Commission of India, [Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 2020].

OLA

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.