CAM, Gopal Subramanium win Compat stay of record Rs 6,300 cr cement penalty because CCI chairman wasn’t present for hearings

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and Gopal Subramanium represented Lafarge arguing on behalf of 10 other cement companies before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) and succeeding in getting the Rs 6,300 crore ($1.15bn) Competition Commission of India (CCI) penalty overturned.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and senior counsel Gopal Subramanium represented Lafarge arguing on behalf of 10 other cement companies before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) and succeeding in getting the Rs 6,300 crore ($1.15bn) Competition Commission of India (CCI) penalty overturned.

After having stayed the CCI fine in 2013 while ordering the cement companies accused of cartellisation to pay 10 per cent of the total fine as a deposit pending the outcome of the appeal, the Compat held today that the CCI order did not follow rules of natural justice and that the Rs 630 crore should be returned to the 11 cement companies.

The Compat held that the CCI did not follow rules of natural justice because its chairman, Ashok Chawla, had not been present for the three days of CCI hearings yet had signed the CCI order.

The Compat has ordered the CCI to pass fresh orders within three months from today but the original director general report that found prima facie cartellisation was not addressed by the appellate body.

Cyril Amarchand Mumbai competition partner Nisha Kaur Uberoi led the Lafarge team, having been designated as lead counsel for the other 10 appellants. The Lafarge team also included Bharat Budholia, Arunima Chandra and Kaustav Kundu.

Clarification: Cyril Amarchand also acted fro the Ambujas on this after the Compat decided it didn’t want repetition of arguments and the cement companies nominated Cyril Amarchand and Gopal Subramanium to advance arguments on their behalf.

The CCI was represented by senior counsel Pallav Sisodia and advocate Vaibhav Gaggar.

The original complainant, the Builder’s Association of India was represented by Seth Dua & Associates partner Atul Dua.

Other advisers:

  • Cement Manufacturing Association: Promod B. Agarwala, Prashant Mehra, Anuj P Agarwala
  • Ultra Tech Cement: Sameer Parekh, Utsav Trivedi, Anand Sina
  • India Cement: Aditya Verma
  • Jai Prakash Associates: GR Bhatia, Nidhi Singh, Kanika Chaudhary, Vikram Sobti
  • Associated Cement Companies: Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi competition partner Pallavi Shroff and Harman Singh Sandhu
  • Binani Cement: Bansuri Swaran, Sudesh Paritosh Anil
  • Ambuja Cements: Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas’ Ashwath Rau, Nisha Kaur Uberoi, Kirat Nagra, Anu Tiwari, Vipul Jain, Soumya Hariharan, Anisha Chand, Aditi Singhvi, Aishwarya Gopalakrishnan, Unnati Agrawal, Neelambera Sandeepan, Atreyee Sarkar, Sammith S.
  • The Ramco Cements: T Srinivas Murthy
  • JK Cement: PK Bhalla
  • Century Textile Industries: Pramod B Agarwala

Photo by William Warby / BY CC

Comments

Defunct 11 Dec 2015, 07:47
+3 -0
What a joke. This is nothing short of hooliganism by judges.
NLUJ 11 Dec 2015, 11:00
+4 -3
What a bogus judgement? Heart bleeds when incompetent retired judges opines on wholly irrelevant things and are afraid from entering into real antitrust issues
Antitrust 12 Dec 2015, 14:09
+2 -0
Misfortune to have so incompetent judges amd retd judges. Heart bleeds at this "judgement" of compat a hub of collusion and collusive practice. Heart cried on reading haryana panchayat judgement.
Lexpert 11 Dec 2015, 11:07
+0 -0
@kianganz - is it a stay on the CCI order or has it been overturned? Be clear, man!
kianganz 11 Dec 2015, 11:18
+0 -0
Definitely overturned - the second paragraph slightly unclear on that front perhaps, sorry - Compat had stayed it in 2013 pending appeal with 10% deposit.
Lexpert 14 Dec 2015, 12:39
+0 -0
Isn't the headline incorrect then, @kianganz?
LOL 11 Dec 2015, 11:25
+3 -0
Great propaganda by CAM!
Please Check 11 Dec 2015, 19:24
+0 -0
Kian - Lafarge was being represented by AZB. Are you sure that they've gone to CAM now?? You may want to check.
kianganz 12 Dec 2015, 06:17
+1 -0
Yes, definitely CAM for Lafarge, it's on the Compat causelist, as are the other advisers.
CAM policy 12 Dec 2015, 07:21
+0 -0
Won't CAM be conflicted representing Lafarge and Ambuja? Wonder how that works, even if they claim there's a Chinese wall.
kianganz 12 Dec 2015, 08:28
+8 -0
Presumably, since all parties were happy to let Lafarge take the lead on arguing before Compat, they are all happy to take the same argument and line of defence (lack of natural justice in this case).

Hilariously that means they're colluding on their defence against their collusion :)
King11111 12 Dec 2015, 08:22
+0 -1
the real king is gs. Not sibal. Hrd the herald case is also now being done by him
Check your facts 12 Dec 2015, 19:51
+5 -4
La farge was represented by AZB till Mr. Subramaniam was arguing. The handover to CAM happened after that, though I'm sure CAM doesn't mind taking credit for the win. The handover was partly because Holcim and Lafarge have merged, so it didn't make sense for them to continue having separate counsel and paying multiple firms. However, SAM continues to represent ACC (another Holcim company). Also, both AZB and CAM (briefing Ramji Srinivasan for Ambuja Cement) were designated the "lead appeals". Your reporting is really unfair to Samir Gandhi and AZB, this is definitely their victory.
Please Check 13 Dec 2015, 08:20
+4 -2
This is exactly what I thought as well! CAM seems to be taking the spotlight for free when the real work of briefing GS and coming up with the whole strategy of adopting procedural arguments was AZB's!!! Nisha shouldn't be taking this free credit and CAM shouldn't be gaining publicity for work they never did!! It's just so shocking... Or maybe they're setting a new level of competition.
Sour grapes 14 Dec 2015, 00:01
+3 -2
Bottom line is AZB does NOT represent Lafarge. It did in the past. Then Lafarge went to CAM. AZB is history in this matter. It is ridiculous to think anyone other than the representing lawyers deserve credit. If you want to dwell in the past and give credit for historic achievements, let's thank the East India Company for the business it did in India! Without them we wouldn't have learnt the English language and GS wouldn't have been able to argue in English before the tribunal! Be a man. Take it on the chin. AZB lost this matter and that's it.
Bhai 14 Dec 2015, 12:07
+0 -3
If AZB was briefing GS when he argued, and subsequently the matter moved to CAM, then surely AZB deserves the credit?
King11111 14 Dec 2015, 06:12
+9 -0
Ohh pls as if cam or azb had anything to do with the argument. The real fact is it was gs all the way who came up with this argument.

Azb- u guys lost out to cam. U were there in the beginningn but the clients were not happy with your case management or your rates

Cam- you guys offerred better handholding and lower rates.