The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vifor International Ltd vs Competition Commission of India consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma observed that it is only when a complaint fails to raise the aforesaid issues and concerns itself solely or exclusively with violations of the Patent Act, 1970 or the infringement or enforcement of rights that may otherwise be conferred by that Act that it could be said that the information would fall outside the purview and power of enquiry of the Commission.
Facts
This writ petition challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (“Commission”) in the case of XYZ (confidential) v. Vifor International (AG). It appears that the Commission received information which was taken cognisance of u/s 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”). Since the informant had submitted a confidentiality request as contemplated u/s 57 of the Act, the Commission directed that the confidentiality application be treated as being part of the information received for all future purposes. By its orders the Commission had called upon the petitioner to submit its responses on the issues delineated and when it filed the same along with certain preliminary objections, it was ordered to comply with earlier directions. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The issues raised in the information clearly relate to the rights of a patent holder as enshrined in the Patents Act, 1970 and thus the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in taking cognisance of the information received and initiating an enquiry. It was also contended that the disclosure of information as sought by the Commission will result in exposing the petitioner to criminal proceedings. It was also contended that Section 3(5) of the Act protects the rights of any person in respect of action which may be initiated to restrain any infringement or to impose reasonable conditions as may be necessary for protecting any of his rights which may have been conferred upon him under statues enumerated in that sub-section including the Patents Act, 1970 and that Sections 85, 90, 102, 107 and other allied provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, create salutary safeguards with respect to the rights which may be claimed by a patent holder and viewed in that light it is evident that the entire complaint would, if at all, warrant enquiry and examination by authorities conferred that authority under the Patents Act, 1970.
Respondent: The Commission is sufficiently empowered by the Act to deal with allegations relating to anti-competitive agreements, unfair trade practices, abuse of dominant position as well as combinations which may come into being by virtue of merger or amalgamation of enterprises. The complaint alleged discriminatory pricing of drugs, which caused substantial harm not just to competition but also to consumers as well. The proceedings before the Commission presently stood at a nascent stage and so there was no justification for this Court to either interdict the proceedings or to entertain the challenge.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the Commission is duly and statutorily empowered to deal with all information which it may receive with respect to actions that may impede competition, usher in an anti-competitive environment, relate to abuse of dominant position or the adoption of unfair trade practices.
It opined that it is only when the subject matter of information relates to rights and liabilities which rest solely upon the provisions of the Patent Act, 1970 and does not pertain to an issue which could be said to fall within the ambit of the Act and thus form subject matter of enquiry by the Commission that an objection of jurisdiction would withstand.
It also noted that Section 3(5) of the Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Commission completely even though the information may relate to issues pertaining to an anti-competitive environment, abuse of dominant position or the adoption of an unfair trade practice.
Relying on Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. it was held that that it is ultimately the substance of the complaint and whether the allegations relate to aspects which would fall within the province of the Commission under the Act which would truly determine whether the assumption of jurisdiction is sustainable in law.
It was further noted that the initiation of an enquiry by the Commission based on information that may be received, is not liable to be either viewed or understood as the initiation of any coercive steps and that in any case, entities whose operations transcend jurisdictions can neither assume nor claim immunity or exemption from laws or compliance with statutes which are promulgated and are not shown or established to fall foul of international or treaty obligations of nations.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the writ petition was premature and based on unsubstantiated apprehensions, thereby disposing off the same. It took on board the statement tendered on behalf of the petitioner that the notices issued by the Commission shall be duly attended to and disclosures and compliances ensured as per the terms thereof within a period of 6 weeks from today and left it open to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Regulation 36.
Case: Vifor International Ltd vs Competition Commission of India
Citation: W.P.(C) 11263/2022
Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma
Decided on: 28th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
