1. Before the hearing could commence, learned counsel for the appellant made a statement that I.A. No. 161/2015 filed by his clients for grant of permission to file additional information/documents has not been disposed of. Therefore, the arguments were heard on that application.

2. In paragraphs 2 to 7 of the application, the applicants have made the following averments:

"2. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants have come to know various important additional information and documents which goes to the root of the present matter and to prove that TDI Infrastructure Limited (Formerly known as Intime Promoters (P) Limited and others (Resp -2 herein) is a dominant player in the relevant market.

3. The appellant has managed to have complete details of the all the projects so licensed, under consideration, names of the companies and their land pool under licensed project.

4. The appellant has also come to know that the management of the Respondent-2 herein has floated different 29 companies to acquire and hold the land for future and expansion of their business.

5. The appellant has also come to know that Kamal Taneja, the Director of Respondent-2 herein also hold and control different 70 companies by holding the post of director at the same time in all these 70 companies. Similarly, Ravinder Taneja (Managing Director of Resp-2) holds and controls different 25 companies for being their director at the same time.

6. All these information were not with the appellant earlier and the same are essential for the proper adjudication of the present appeal.

7. Vide order dated 18.12.2014, the honble tribunal had granted certain documents which were filed before the CCI but not before the tribunal. Those document have been filed as Annexure : P-23 (Colley)."

3. Along with the application, the applicants have filed a compilation which contains additional information (23 pages) and documents marked Annexure P-22 to P-30.

4. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply dated 22.02.2016 to contest the application and averred that the applicant should not be allowed to place on record the additional information and documents which were available or which could have been accessed by them before filing information under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the Act). Respondent No. 2 has also controverted the averments contained in the document titled "additional information".

5. The appellants filed rejoinder dated 14.03.2016 and reiterated their prayer for permission to file additional information/documents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that even though there is no provision in the Act for filing of additional information/documents at the appellate stage, the Tribunal has inherent power to grant permission for filing such information/document. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal has to be consistent with the principles of natural justice and in exercise of power under Section 53-O(1), the Tribunal has the absolute discretion to grant leave to a party to file additional documents which may have bearing on the question involved in the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the additional information/documents sought to be filed by the applicants were within their knowledge or they could have accessed the same by exercising due diligence even before filing the information under Section 19(1) of the Act but they did not do so and as such the application should be dismissed as highly belated.

8. In our opinion, even though the description of the application is quite misleading inasmuch as there is no provision in the Act or the regulations framed thereunder for filing additional information, the Tribunal can, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 53-O(1), grant leave to the parties to file additional documents provided that the same have bearing on the question/issues raised in the appeal.

9. Having gone through the additional documents, which the appellants secured after passing of the order by the Competition Commission of India, we are satisfied that the same do have some bearing on the question raised in the appeal and it will be in the interest of justice to grant leave to the appellants to place on record the additional documents.

10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by granting leave to the appellants to place on record additional documents marked Annexures P-22 to P-30.

11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 requests that his client may be allowed to file additional documents to controvert what is sought to be projected by the appellants by using the documents marked Annexure P-22 to P30.

12. The request made by the learned counsel is accepted and two weeks time is allowed to Respondent No. 2 to file additional documents.

13. The main appeal be listed for final hearing on 11th May, 2016.