iStockHC held that the appeal was without merit and directed CCI and DG to proceed further in the manner prescribed by law.

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court is the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has paved the way for the order of major tire manufacturers. It has been investigating anti-market activities such as price parallelism and cartels since 2014-15.

As per the High Court’s order, the CCI can now issue final orders by the tire manufacturers based on the findings. The court had previously allowed the CCI to conduct an investigation in 2015, but barred it from taking a final decision.

The case originated in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs from 2013 to 2014. There are said to be five tire manufacturers in the country.-CEAT, JK Tyres, MRF, Apollo Tyres and its association Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA) have 90% of the market share. Because of this, the prices of tires and tubes have gone up, but the prices of tires and tubes have not gone up. Quite the contrary.

In the order issued on January 6 on , Justice T. Raja and Justice T.V. Thamilselvi dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Maximum Rubber Manufacturers (MRF) against the order passed by the court for conducting CCI investigation into anti-market activities, ruling that there were no circumstances that did not warrant interference.

We emphasize that since the investigation ordered by the CCI has been completed, the report of the investigating officer has been filed before the Commission and the parties have completed and participated in the proceedings before the Commission, the Court has held that all the potentially aggrieved parties should have sought relief in a manner known to the law, stating that: “…. At this point in time, the Supreme Court is in the process of making a final decision, which will result in the Court not really being able to function.

The order also states that the issuance of a preliminary opinion holding that a case exists and ordering an inquiry into the complaint/information received is in the form of a preliminary administrative act. Any interference at this stage will only allow the parties to escape. The investigation itself will undermine the objectives sought to be achieved by the Bill. ” he pointed out.

Submitted by the Department and the Regulator (appellant in this case):-In 2013-2014, the All India Tyre Dealers Federation (AITDF) reported that when the price of natural rubber increased, the major tire manufacturers in the country uniformly increased the price of tires and even when the price of natural rubber decreased, the major tire manufacturers in the country did not increase the price of tires. Lowering prices, they fell into price parallelism and cartels.

According to the complaint, the CCI, after directing the Director to look into the matter, a Judge of the Madras High Court ruled that the order passed under Section 26(1) was only administrative and therefore would not lead to a civil suit. Further investigation would not affect the interest of the parties in any manner.

The Court clarified that a CCI order is incompatible with writ jurisdiction as it does not affect rights and does not validly determine the rights or obligations of the listed parties, adding: Section 26(1) In essence, the order prescribed is investigative and preparatory in nature. In essence, it does not affect the rights or obligations of any party. Since it is departmental in nature, it does not create any bias and therefore does not create any civil consequences. The Commission under Article 26(ii). ) The order passed under section ) is final… It can be appealed only. ‘HC concludes that there is no ground for appeal and directs CCI and DG to proceed in a manner known to law.