Summary
In this 2017 interpretation of Section 27(b), the penalty base for the product-specific cartel was relevant turnover rather than the multi-product enterprise’s total turnover. Proportionality, statutory purpose and avoidance of inequitable penalties supported that construction. The Court sustained COMPAT’s penalties and dismissed both the enterprises’ and CCI’s appeals.
Issues
- For the statutory provision then adjudicated, whether penalty should use relevant or total enterprise turnover.
Provisions considered
- Section 27(b), as considered in the 2017 judgment, Competition Act, 2002Relevant turnover of the affected product/service governed the penalty base in the provision then interpreted. (¶¶ Sikri J: 73–75, Ramana J: 6–16)
Held
- The provision then used turnover without expressly saying total or relevant. Including unrelated products could produce disproportionate penalties; the relationship between contravention and affected turnover supported relevant turnover. (¶ Sikri J: 73–74)
- The concurrence proposed identifying turnover of affected products/services using reliable financial material, then selecting a reasoned percentage considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Its factors were illustrative and required assessment of the particular case. (¶ Ramana J: 11–14)
- COMPAT’s penalty approach and the penalties in this case required no interference. This headnote records the historical provision and ruling adjudicated in 2017. (¶¶ Sikri J: 74–75, Ramana J: 15–16)
Result
Enterprises’ appeals and CCI’s appeals dismissed without costs; COMPAT’s outcome sustained.