Skip to content

CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · Competition Law

Rohan Steels Ltd. deliberately and without any reasonable ground disobeys an order of the Appellate Tribunal. Which statement about the consequence under the Act is correct?

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi may impose a penalty up to rupees one crore, imprisonment up to three years, or both. Cognizance can be taken only on a complaint made by an officer authorised by the Appellate Tribunal, and the contravention must be without reasonable ground.

  1. AThe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi may impose a penalty up to rupees one crore or imprisonment up to three years or both, on a complaint by an officer authorised by the Appellate TribunalCorrect
  2. BThe Competition Commission may imprison the officers for up to one year
  3. CThe Supreme Court alone may take cognizance on a suo motu basis, with a fine up to Rs 10 lakh
  4. DThe Appellate Tribunal itself may impose imprisonment up to five years

Explanation

Section 53Q(1) provides a penalty not exceeding Rs one crore or imprisonment up to three years or both, as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi deems fit. The Magistrate takes cognizance only on a complaint by an officer authorised by the Appellate Tribunal. The other options misstate the forum or the punishment.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Competition Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Competition LawFree diagnostic mock

More Competition Law questions