J.K. GUPTA versus D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION AND ORS.

J.K. GUPTA versus D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION AND ORS.

Since Section 18 of the Act requires that criminal contempt proceedings be heard by a bench of not less than two Judges (members), the Chairman sitting singly could not validly dispose of the proceedings; the impugned order was thus set aside for being in violation of the mandatory procedure.

Parties
Appellant: J.K. Gupta; Respondents: D.G. Investigation and Registration and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Outcome
Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Commission to dispose of contempt according to law. Connected appeal dismissed as infructuous.
Legal Topics
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, Contempt Proceedings, Procedure for Contempt Under MRTP Act
Competition Law Contempt of Court Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act Contempt Proceedings Procedure for Contempt Under MRTP Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.K. Gupta

Appellant

D.G. Investigation and Registration and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chairman of the MRTP Commission alone could hear and decide a criminal contempt proceeding
  2. 2 Whether contempt proceedings must be heard by a bench of not less than two members as per Section 18 of the MRTP Act

Ratio Decidendi

Since Section 18 of the Act requires that criminal contempt proceedings be heard by a bench of not less than two Judges (members), the Chairman sitting singly could not validly dispose of the proceedings; the impugned order was thus set aside for being in violation of the mandatory procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Commission to dispose of contempt according to law. Connected appeal dismissed as infructuous.

Orders

  • Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1997 allowed.
  • Impugned order set aside.