IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 286  OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12422/2008)

M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. now Tata Motors Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

N. Poongodi & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

In this case, vide the impugned judgment, the Monopolies and Restrictive

Trade Practices Commission ('Commission' for short) has dismissed the application,

C.A.No.7/2007, filed by the appellant herein for deciding the issue of maintainability of

the  Compensation Application bearing No.  M.A.No.7/2007  as  a preliminary issue,

hence, this Civil Appeal.

Appellant-Company is  a non-banking financial institution.   Respondents

had entered into four hire purchase agreements with the appellant, the details of which

are given in synopsis 'D' to the S.L.P. paper book.  Disputes arose between the parties

which went to arbitration.  Two Awards were given.  Ultimately the matter came to

this Court by way of Special Leave Petition and the Awards stood confirmed.  In the

process, a period  of almost ten years elapsed.  Pursuant

  ...2/-

CA @ SLP(C) 12422/08 contd...

-2-

to  the Awards,  execution proceedings,  including insolvency proceedings,  have been

taken.  We do not wish to comment about those proceedings as the matter is  sub

judice.   

Suffice it  to  state that after ten years,  the Commission has been moved

claiming damages in which appellant herein raised the contention that it should decide

the question of maintainability of the above Compensation Application No.7/2007 as a

preliminary issue.   

According to the appellant, the said Compensation Application No.7/2007

amounts  to  abuse  of  process  and it  is  this  issue  which the  appellant wanted  the

Commission to be decided as a preliminary issue.

When the matter came for hearing, we have examined the voluminous record

threadbare.  After examining the entire record, without commenting on the merits of

the case, we are of the view that the Commission has erred in holding, vide para 11,

that  the  question  of  maintainability  of  Compensation  Application  No.7/2007  is  a

question of fact and law which can be decided only when the evidence is led.   It is

important to note that in this case what the Commission ought to have done is to have

examined the scope of  the arbitration proceedings.   It  ought to have examined the

pleadings before the Arbitrator before coming to the conclusion as stated hereinabove

vide para 11 of the impugned judgment.  The bare fact remains that

...3/-

CA @ SLP(C) 12422/08 contd...

-3-

after ten years and after the parties have gone through the entire gamut of the various

proceedings, the matter has been moved before the Commission alleging unfair trade

practice.  There are various nuances of the concept of abuse of process, which includes

moving the Commission after ten years.  None of these aspects have been examined by

the Commission.   

On the facts and circumstances of  this  case,  we are of  the view that the

Commission should frame and decide the issue of the Complaint being an abuse of the

process as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter.  We do not wish

to express any opinion on that issue or on the merits of the case.  We make it clear that

all contentions on the preliminary issue are kept open.  Any observation made in the

impugned judgment as well as herein on merits will not bind the Commission while

deciding the preliminary issue.

Before concluding,  we are constrained to observe that certain allegations

have been made in the  Compensation Application against  the  Chairperson of  the

Appellant Company.  It would be open to the Commission to examine at the threshold

whether  those  allegations  have  any  relevance  to  the  Complaint  filed  before  the

Commission and,  if  it  comes  to  the conclusion after hearing the parties that such

allegations have no relevance to the Compensation Application, then, it may consider

ordering deletion of such allegations.

Subject  to what is stated  hereinabove, the impugned

 ...4/-

CA @ SLP(C) 12422/08 contd...

-4-

judgment is set aside and the matter stands remitted to the Monopolies and Restrictive

Trade Practices Commission to frame and decide the above issue as a preliminary issue

within a period of four months.

Civil appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.

                         ...................J.               (S.H. KAPADIA)

                        ...................J.

                                         (H.L. DATTU) New Delhi, January 15, 2009.