Premature Compensation.docx

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.