National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal as Withdrawn Due to Operational Difficulties. Appellant's Withdrawal Approved Unopposed by Respondents, Leading to Dismissal of Appeal Under Section 26(2) of Competition Act, 2002.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved Meru Travel Solutions Pvt Ltd as the appellant against the Competition Commission of India and others as respondents. The appellant filed an appeal arising from an order dated 20.06.2018, which disposed of information filed by the appellant on 02.06.2017 under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The appeal was admitted by the Tribunal on 22.07.2019. The appellant's counsel submitted that the company faced severe operational and revenue impacts, making it unviable to continue the litigation. Consequently, the management decided to withdraw the appeal. The respondents' counsel indicated no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was made by Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra.

Headnote

A) Competition Law - Withdrawal of Appeal - Unconditional Withdrawal - Competition Act, 2002, Section 26(2) - The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal due to severe operational and revenue impacts affecting its ability to continue litigation. The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Held that the appellant's request was unopposed by the respondents (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant can withdraw the appeal against the order of the Competition Commission of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of appeal
  • Section 26(2) Competition Act
  • 2002
  • Unconditional withdrawal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 138

IA NO.33 11 /2026 in Competition Appeal (AT) No.6 4 /2018

2026-05-12

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr Udayan Jain, Mr Abir Ray, Ms Kajal Sharma, Mr Vivek Pandey, Mr Ranjan Mishra, Mr Sasthibrata Panda, Mr Harsh J, Ms Biyanka Bhaba, Ms Nisha Kaur Uberoi, Mr Sarthak Pande, Ms Akrathi Shetty, Mr Rohan Bhargava, Mr Srihars h Peechera, Ms Shruti Aggarwala, Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr Rohan Arora, Mr Aman Singh Sethi, Mr Shivek Endlaw, Ms Saachi Keile

Meru Travel Solutions Pvt Ltd

Competition Commission of India & Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order of the Competition Commission of India

Remedy Sought

Withdrawal of the appeal

Filing Reason

Impugned order dated 20.06.2018 disposing of information filed on 02.06.2017

Previous Decisions

Appeal admitted on 22.07.2019

Issues

Whether the appellant can withdraw the appeal Impact of operational difficulties on litigation

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued for withdrawal due to operational impacts Respondents' counsel had no objection to the withdrawal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal recognized the appellant's right to withdraw the appeal unconditionally, especially when the withdrawal was unopposed by the respondents.

Judgment Excerpts

The application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to withdraw the present appeal unconditionally. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an order of the Competition Commission of India dated 20.06.2018, was admitted by the Tribunal on 22.07.2019, and the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Competition Act, 2002: Section 26(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Religious Institution Dispute — Upholds Trial Court's Findings. The court found that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction, and the Mathadhipathi seat could not be relinquished be...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in Murder Case to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder. The court found that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, warranting a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.