Competition Commission of India received complaints against Karisma Broadcasting Ltd. for abusing its dominant position. Accordingly, Director General started investigations and a raid was carried out. In the course of r

Section 41 of the Competition Act, 2002 states that: (1) The Director General shall, when so directed by the Commission, assist the Commission in investigating into any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder. (2) The Director General shall have all the powers as are conferred upon the Commission under subsection of section 36. (3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), sections 240 and 240A of the Companies Act, 195), so far as may be, shall apply to an investigation made by the Director General or any other person investigating under his authority, as they apply to an inspector appointed under that Act. The facts of the present case is similar to the case of Competition Commission of India vs. JCB India Ltd. and Ors, Supreme Court dt 15.01.2019. In this case, CCI ordered an investigation into an alleged abuse of dominant position by JCB. Pursuant to the same, dawn raid was carried out by the DG in the JCB premises and all incriminating documents, hard drives and laptops found by the inspecting team during the course of the "dawn raid" were seized. A writ petition before the Delhi High Court was filed for setting aside of the search and seizure conducted by the DG. The Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court, vide order dated 02nd June 2016 stayed the investigation restraining DG from acting on the seized material for any purpose whatsoever till the next date of hearing. CCI filed an SLP in the Supreme Court against the order of the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 15th Janaury 2019 in CCI vs JCB observed that the provisions of Section 240A of the Companies Act, 1956 do not merely relate to an authorization for a search but extend to the authorization of a seizure as well. Unless the seizure were to be authorized, a mere search by itself will not be sufficient for the purposes of investigation. By virtue of Section 240A read with Section 41(3) of the Competition Act, DG was authorised to conduct search and seizures. The Apex court vacated the stay stating that the blanket restraint which had been imposed by the Delhi High Court on the DG from acting on the seized material for any purpose whatsoever was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and the transferred matters were remitted back to the Delhi High Court to be decided in the writ petitions pending before Delhi High Court. Therefore, writ petition filed by the Company is not maintainable.