Scribd
Upload
35 views1 page

Premature Compensation

Dylon Nutricia appeals a penalty imposed by the CCB for excessive pricing. The appeal contends the validity and quantum of the penalty. The compensation claim by the Retailers' Association for Milk is disputed as premature since the appeal is pending. Citing the compensation claim as premature, Dylon Nutricia requests the Tribunal stay the decision until further orders. Previous cases have decided against premature compensation.

Uploaded by

Roop Chaudhary
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views1 page

Premature Compensation

Dylon Nutricia appeals a penalty imposed by the CCB for excessive pricing. The appeal contends the validity and quantum of the penalty. The compensation claim by the Retailers' Association for Milk is disputed as premature since the appeal is pending. Citing the compensation claim as premature, Dylon Nutricia requests the Tribunal stay the decision until further orders. Previous cases have decided against premature compensation.

Uploaded by

Roop Chaudhary
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Premature Compensation –

1. Please add Section 53N


2. The Appellant – Dylon Nutricia, humbly submits before the Appellate Tribunal that
the claim for compensation by the respondent, i.e., Retailers’ Association for Milk is
not sustainable.
3. The CCB after considering the pleadings of both the parties and the report by the DG,
in its decision imposed a penalty on Dylon Nutricia of 10% of the past three years’
total turnover. In this appeal, the Appellant along with other issues has also contended
the validity of the quantum and imposition of the said penalty.
4. The appeal is now pending before the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order
passed by the CCB. Thus, the Appellant is not liable to pay any amount as penalty to
the respondents.
5. The compensation in the present case stands as premature compensation since the
matter is sub-judice. The fact that RAM is entitled to any compensation is being
contended.
6. The claim is based on the alleged excessive pricing of products by Dylon and the
supposed loss incurred by the RAM.
7. Citing the claim as premature, the Appellant prays before the Tribunal to stay the
impugned decision till further orders.

CASES –

1. A.K. Singh v. Uttarakhand Jan Morcha [AIR 1999 SC 2193]


2. State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India (2003) 8 SCC
546

Both have decided against premature compensation.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy