IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 464/2014
  
  
  
  TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
  
  LM ERICSSON (PUBL) ..... Petitioner
  
  Through: Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan and
  
  Mrs. Prathiba M. Singh, Senior
  
  Advocates with Mr. Anand Pathak,
  
  Mr. Ravi Nair, Mrs.Saya Choudhary
  
  Kapur, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar,
  
  Mr. Shivanghi Sukumar, Mr. B. Prashant
  
  Kumar and Mr. Varun Tikmani,
  
  Advocates.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  COMPETITION COMMISSION
  
  OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
  
  Through: Ms. Anupam Sanghi and Mr. Arvind
  
  Sharma, Advocates with Mr. Sukesh
  
  Mishra, Joint Director (Law) of
  
  respondent No.1/CCI.
  
  Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate with
  
  Mr. Saikrishna Raja Gopal, Mr. Sunil Dalal, Mr. Rajiv K.
  Choudhry, Mr. J. Sai
  
  Deepak, Mr. Subhaji Banerji, Mr. Aditya
  
  Kutty and Mr. Maanav Kumar,
  
  Advocates for respondent No.2.
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   21.01.2014
  
  
  
  Cav. 64/2014 in W.P(C) 464/2014
  
  Since the caveator has already put in appearance, the caveat
  petition stands disposed of.
  
  CM Appls. 912-913/2014 (exemptions) in W.P.(C) 464/2014
  
  Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
  
  Accordingly, present applications stand disposed of.
  
  W.P.(C) 464/2014 and CM Appls. 911, 914-915/2014
  
  Present writ petition has been filed primarily challenging the order
  dated 12th November, 2013 passed by respondent No.1.
  
  Issue notice.
  
  Ms. Anupam Sanghi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
  respondent No.1.
  
  Mr. Saikrishna Raja Gopal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
  of respondent No.2.
  
  Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits
  that the respondent No.1-Competition Commission of India has no
  jurisdiction to investigate the action of the petitioner inasmuch as the
  Patent Act itself provides adequate mechanism to balance the rights of
  patentee and other stakeholders. In support of his submission, he relies
  upon the order passed by this Court in CS(OS) 442/2013 as well as Section
  3(5)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002.
  
  Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for petitioner also refers
  to the prayer clause of the petition filed by respondent No.2 and states
  that respondent No. 1 can neither entertain nor grant any of the reliefs.
  
  Mr. Vaidyanathan lastly states that the direction in the impugned
  order dated 12th November, 2013 which was first uploaded on website on
  21st November, 2013 is different from the direction contained in
  certified copy of the impugned order.
  
  Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 draws
  this Court?s attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
  Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and
  
  Another, (2010) 10 SCC 744 wherein it has been held that an order passed under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 is an administrative
  order and an aggrieved party has a right to challenge it at Section 26(7)
  stage. He also places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in
  Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C)
  2037/2013 as well as the order passed by High Court of Bombay in W.P.(C)
  1785/2009, Kingfisher Airlines Limited vs. Competition Commission of
  India.
  
  Ms. Anupam Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that
  she wants a short adjournment to file an affidavit.
  
  Having heard the learned counsel for parties and having perused the
  aforesaid judgments, this Court is prima facie of the view that a
  substantial question of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to entertain
  respondent No. 2?s petition arises in the present proceedings.
  
  Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 12th November, 2013, this
  Court is also prima facie of the view that the Commission has entered
  into an adjudicatory and determinative process by recording detailed and
  substantial reasoning at the Section 26(1) stage itself. In fact, by
  virtue of the impugned order, this Court is prima facie of the view that
  the petitioner?s remedy under Section 26(7) has been rendered illusory.
  
  This Court is also prima facie of the view that by virtue of the
  impugned order an investigation has been ordered into consent terms which
  had been approved by this Court by order dated 19th March, 2013 in CS(OS)
  442/2013.
  
  Consequently, till the next date of hearing while the petitioner may
  give information as called upon by the Director General of Competition
  Commission of India, no final order/report shall be passed either by the
  Competition Commission of India or by its Director General.
  
  Though the Director General of the Competition Commission of India
  is free to call any local officer of the petitioner for investigation
  purposes, but no officer stationed abroad shall be called without taking
  specific leave of this Court.
  
  It is also made clear that the observations made by the Commission
  shall not come in the way of the petitioner negotiating with third
  parties or in the adjudication of the proceedings filed by either of the
  parties in this Court.
  
  List the matter before Joint Registrar on 26th May, 2014 for
  completion of pleadings.
  
  Order dasti.
  
  
  
  
  
  MANMOHAN, J
  
  JANUARY 21, 2014
  
  js
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 464/2014 Page 4 of 4
  
  
  
  
  
  28
  
  $