The National Stock Exchange (NSE) has yet again approached the Delhi High court against the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The stock exchange has sought dissent details from the CCI with regard to a recent showcause notice of the latter.
The CCI had, after a long investigation, issued the NSE a showcause notice, saying there was evidence of abuse of a dominant market position and adoption of unfair practices in currency derivatives trading. On May 16, NSE asked the Delhi HC to compel CCI for a copy of the entire investigation report on which the showcause had been based. On the HC asking CCI to do so, the latter gave a copy of the 140-page investigation report on May 25.
Now, NSE says the copy given to it is incomplete, as it appears to have been passed by a majority on the CCI, with no dissent note attached.
MONOPOLY, WHAT PRICE? Fines that a few big companies paid for monopolistic practices | |||
Company | Year | Country | Amount (Rs cr, approx figure) |
Microsoft | 2001 | EU | 6,000 |
Siemens | 2007 | EU | 2,500 |
Intel | 2009 | EU | 6,500 |
Qualcomm | 2009 | South Korea | 900 |
They want the details of who dissented and why from the investigation findings and the decision to issue a showcause.
A source in CCI says the order was deliberated by a seven-member CCI, of Dhanendra Kumar (chairman), H C Gupta, R Prasad, P N Parashar, M L Tayal, Geeta Gouri and Anurag Goel. Of these, only Anurag Goel and Geeta Gouri did not sign the order and sought more time.
Goel is also a contender for the post of CCI chairman, with Kumar retiring on June 5. The source alleged NSE had been delaying its objections and reply for this reason.
The CCI investigation came on complaints filed by NSE’s rival in the currency derivative market, the MCX Stock Exchange. It alleged NSE substantially reduced admission and trade related fees to eliminate competition and discourage other entities from entering the market. The probe said it found NSE had violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, on abuse of dominant market position. NSE could attract a penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year turnover average if finally found guilty.