Verus, SAM on Coal India’s win in COMPAT, $265m CCI penalty set aside

Verus advised the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in Coal India’s Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) appeal against the CCI’s order penalising Coal India Rs 1,773 crore. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas was advising Coal India.

Verus partner Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury briefed senior counsel Pallav Shishodia for the CCI.

SAM regional managing partner Pallavi Shroff, partners Shweta Shroff Chopra and Harman Singh Sandhu, senior associate Yaman Verma and associate Toshit Shandilya briefed senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and Ramji Srinivasan and advocate Rajshekhar Rao for Coal India.

“The CCI, further to complaints filed by Maharashtra State Power Generating Company and Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, had fined CIL INR 1773 crores for abusing its dominant position as a supplier of coal by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in its fuel supply agreements with various customers. The CCI then passed subsequent orders in cases filed by the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited, Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Limited, Sponge Iron Manufacturers’ Association, and Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited, which did not impose a further penalty but required CIL to cease and desist from its unfair conduct and modify the terms of its agreements. These have all been set aside by the COMPAT,” according to SAM’s press release.

“The CCI’s order has been set aside on grounds of violation of natural justice; and the matter has been remitted back to the Commission for fresh hearing and decision within a period of two months. The Tribunal has further directed that no new evidence or material can be filed by any of the parties,” according to an email from Verus.

Read order

Comments

catrina 17 May 2016, 13:05
+4 -0
No big deal the appeal court sets all cci matters aside. cat and dog fight.
Aam Aadmi 17 May 2016, 14:10
+2 -1
Great to know some Verus Partner's go to Court and are not merely name lending AOR's. Tough luck Rishad, but congratulations on being involved in the mega matter.
Aloo Potato 17 May 2016, 19:07
+1 -0
You win some you lose some. Such is life. Glad to see Rishad is beginning to square off against the big names in the game.
LoL 17 May 2016, 16:58
+2 -1
So the Compat set aside CCIs order. Which means that verus was on the losing side. Isn't it a first in that a firm has issued a press release on losing a matter?
Lexpert 17 May 2016, 17:34
+3 -3
This is a bizarre report. What credit does a lawyer deserve for losing the matter in court? Too much transaction reporting is spoiling you guys. Some perspective in reporting pls.
Bar and Bench 17 May 2016, 18:59
+0 -0
When you're in the news only for attrition and partner departures maybe any other news is good news....
kianganz 17 May 2016, 19:10
+0 -0
My guess would be that irrespective of whether you win or lose on a case this big, it's pretty good experience for a firm to have been advising on such big competition matters, so hence publicity is welcome also... (especially since there are not many law firms with practical contentious CCI experience other than a handful...)
kianganz 18 May 2016, 08:06
+0 -0
Also, would like to issue a correction - Verus didn't send a press release, they just sent us an email confirming the facts and lawyers involved... Sorry for the error.

We've also added Gopal Subramanium as Coal India counsel, further to comment 7.1 below...
SAMLol! 17 May 2016, 19:14
+0 -6
Great work by Pallavi Shroff and Team. Everyone knows Harman is one of the most sought after competition lawyer in India right now. Yaman and Toshit are the young guns in Pallavi's armoury. Good work!
SAMRoll 18 May 2016, 07:59
+1 -3
All credit goes to Shweta who supervises Harman. She is a good lawyer. Why has it not been mentioned that Gopal Subramananiam, Senior Counsel led this? When junior counsel like R Rao have been named.
Quirk 18 May 2016, 11:02
+0 -0
So this matter was argued twice before the COMPAT, once before Justice Singhvi sitting alone (by Gopal, Ramji, and Rajshekhar), and then before a bench of Justice Singhvi and Member Kher (by Ramji and Rajshekhar). The order was passed in relation to the second hearing (though it makes reference to interim orders passed earlier). Accordingly, it is technically incorrect to state that Gopal argued this case before the bench that made the decision. While normally not a big deal, given the subject matter of the decision, I think it's important!
AAM Associate 18 May 2016, 11:28
+0 -0
The credit goes to the poor associates who must have worked tirelessly. Sad to see credit hoggers hog their share.
Who?? 18 May 2016, 12:05
+0 -0
Sorry - but apart from the partners, no one knows / cares about the rest!
Topu 18 May 2016, 18:49
+1 -0
Yayyyy TOpuuuuu