Delhi HC stays recovery of 90% penalty imposed on ‘MakeMyTrip’ by CCI

Case Details: Makemytrip India (P.) Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India - [2022] 145 taxmann.com 405 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Prathiba M. Singh, J.
  • Mukul Rohatgi, Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advs. Shashank Gautam, Rajat Moudgil, Ms Aashna Manocha, Akshat Hansari, Ms Anisha Bohra, Swapnil Singh, Sreemoyee Deb & Anand Sree, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • N. Venkataraman, ASG Rajeev Saxena, Samar Bansal, Chandra Shekhara Bharatho, Ms Amritha Chandramouli, S. Ram Narayan, Rahul Vijay Kumar, Madhav Gupta, Vedant Kapur, Rajeev Saxena, Siddharth Luthra, Saurav Bansal, Vaibhav Gaggar, Vaibhav Chouker, Ms Ela Bali, Ms Kokila Kumari, Faiz Siddiqui, Somdev Tiwari, Mrityunjay Mahendra, Abir Roy, T. Sundar Ramanath, Vivek Pandey, Aman Shankar, Soham Goswami, Rohan Arora, Ms Rukhmini Bobde, Ms Sonal Gupta, Ishan Nagar, Abhishek Thakral & Amlaan Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The in the instant case, a petition was filed by MakeMyTrip (MMT) impugning the order passed by the NCLAT. MMT had approached the NCLAT challenging the order passed by CCI. The NCLAT admitted the said appeal, however, directed a deposit of 10% of the penalty amount, which was imposed by the CCI as a condition for admission of the appeal.

Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order passed by the NCLAT is completely ambiguous as to the reasons for which the direction for deposit of 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI has been issued.

Additional Solicitor General appearing for the CCI, submits that the NCLAT has merely followed the pattern, which was followed in the order dated 22nd November, 2022 passed by the NCLAT in Oravel Stays Limited v. CCI & Ors. Be that as it may, it is submitted that the clear understanding of the parties present, while the impugned order was passed, was that, subject to deposit of 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI, the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount would remain stayed.

High Court Held

The Delhi High Court observed that the appeal before the NCLAT, admittedly, challenges the entire order passed by the CCI. The impugned order passed by the NCLAT, however, while admitting the appeal, does not give any reasons for directing the deposit of 10% of the penalty amount. Further, no interim protection has been explicitly granted in the said impugned order, in respect of the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount

It was further observed that the appeal before the NCLAT is a first appeal challenging the order passed by the CCI. Thus, a pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty amount could not have been made for mere admission of the appeal. It is obvious that the intention, which may not be explicitly made clear in the entire order dated 6th December, 2022 passed by the NCLAT, is against the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount.

In view of the above, the Court directed that subject to the deposit of 10% of the total penalty amount of Rs.223.48 crores, in accordance with the order of the CCI, as directed by the NCLAT, no recovery shall be effected in respect of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount. The said deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.