[2013] 3 S.C.R. 659 • RANG! INTERNATIONAL LTD . A v. NOVA SCOTIA BANK & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 253-253A of 2012) MAY 06, 2013 B [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Competition Law - Competition Commission and Competition Appellate .Tribunal - Required to pass reasoned C orders - Held: The Competition Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important quasi judicial · functions and the orders passed by them can have far reaching consequences - The minimum required of the Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the D orders passed by them are supported by reasons, even briefly - However, on facts, the impugned orders passed by the Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal are bereft of any reasons in support of their conclusions and, therefore cannot be sustained - Merits of E the issues involved, thus, not gone into by the Supreme Court -Matters remanded back to the Competition Appellate Tribunal for reconsider~tion of the entire issue on merits including the preliminary objections raised by the appellants - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 253-253-A of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2011 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in RA 41 of 2010 G in UTPE 192 of 2008. Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant. 659 H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.

A Ajay Abhay Monga, Dev Mani Bansal, Arun Kumar Beriwal for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER B 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We have perused the impugned order as well as the entire record. In our opinion, the appellants have raised ,. substantial questions of law in the proceeding before thev Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. However, the order passed by the Member on 2nd September, 2009 merely states that it is not a case of unfair trade practice within the provisions of the MRTP Act and appears to be a D contractual matter between the parties. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed a review application No. 41 of 2010 under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. However, upon the enforcement of the Competition Act, the review was required E to be heard by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The aforesaid review petition was duly heard and dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal on 3.5.2011. It appears that even in the aforesaid order, the Appellate Tribunal merely restated what has been stated by the Member of the F Commission in the earlier order.

4. The Competition Commission as well as the Competition Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important quasi judicial functions. The orders passed by the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal can have far reaching G consequences. Therefore, the minimum that is required of the Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the orders are supported by reasons, even briefly. However, the impugned orders are bereft of any reasons in support of the conclusions. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned orders H challenged herein cannot be sustained. RANGI INTERNATIONAL LTD. y. NOVA SCOTIA BANK 661 & ORS. 5. At this stage, we may, however take note of the A .>ubmissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent as it would have some bearing on the pror.eedings that would now be reopened before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellants had willingly entered into a contractual relationship with the re.spondent-Bank B and therefore, the Competition Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal have rightly non suited the appellants. 6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petition in fact, is not maintainable under Section 4(2) of the M.R.T.P. Act. C He further submitted that the claims made by the appellants are even otherwise barred by limitation.

7. We are not inclined to examine the issues raised by tn'e parties on merits, in view of the order proposed. Without going into the merits of the issues involved, we deem it appropriate D to set aside the orders impugned only on the ground that they do not disclose the reasons for the conclusions reached. 8. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, the matters are remanded back to the Competition Appellate E Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire issue on merits including the preliminary objections raised by the appellants. B.B.B. Appeals allowed.

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 659 • RANG! INTERNATIONAL LTD . A v. NOVA SCOTIA BANK & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 253-253A of 2012) MAY 06, 2013 B [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Competition Law - Competition Commission and Competition Appellate .Tribunal - Required to pass reasoned C orders - Held: The Competition Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important quasi judicial · functions and the orders passed by them can have far reaching consequences - The minimum required of the Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the D orders passed by them are supported by reasons, even briefly - However, on facts, the impugned orders passed by the Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal are bereft of any reasons in support of their conclusions and, therefore cannot be sustained - Merits of E the issues involved, thus, not gone into by the Supreme Court -Matters remanded back to the Competition Appellate Tribunal for reconsider~tion of the entire issue on merits including the preliminary objections raised by the appellants - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 253-253-A of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2011 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in RA 41 of 2010 G in UTPE 192 of 2008. Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant. 659 H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.

A Ajay Abhay Monga, Dev Mani Bansal, Arun Kumar Beriwal for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER B 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We have perused the impugned order as well as the entire record. In our opinion, the appellants have raised ,. substantial questions of law in the proceeding before thev Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. However, the order passed by the Member on 2nd September, 2009 merely states that it is not a case of unfair trade practice within the provisions of the MRTP Act and appears to be a D contractual matter between the parties. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed a review application No. 41 of 2010 under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. However, upon the enforcement of the Competition Act, the review was required E to be heard by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The aforesaid review petition was duly heard and dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal on 3.5.2011. It appears that even in the aforesaid order, the Appellate Tribunal merely restated what has been stated by the Member of the F Commission in the earlier order.

4. The Competition Commission as well as the Competition Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important quasi judicial functions. The orders passed by the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal can have far reaching G consequences. Therefore, the minimum that is required of the Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the orders are supported by reasons, even briefly. However, the impugned orders are bereft of any reasons in support of the conclusions. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned orders H challenged herein cannot be sustained. RANGI INTERNATIONAL LTD. y. NOVA SCOTIA BANK 661 & ORS. 5. At this stage, we may, however take note of the A .>ubmissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent as it would have some bearing on the pror.eedings that would now be reopened before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellants had willingly entered into a contractual relationship with the re.spondent-Bank B and therefore, the Competition Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal have rightly non suited the appellants. 6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petition in fact, is not maintainable under Section 4(2) of the M.R.T.P. Act. C He further submitted that the claims made by the appellants are even otherwise barred by limitation.

7. We are not inclined to examine the issues raised by tn'e parties on merits, in view of the order proposed. Without going into the merits of the issues involved, we deem it appropriate D to set aside the orders impugned only on the ground that they do not disclose the reasons for the conclusions reached. 8. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, the matters are remanded back to the Competition Appellate E Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire issue on merits including the preliminary objections raised by the appellants. B.B.B. Appeals allowed.