Bare Act Search Results

Competition Act, 2002 Chapter 2

Title: Prohibition of Certain Agreements, Abuse of Dominant Position and Regulation of Combinations

State: Central

Year: 2002

.....of the Explanation to section 5.]] ___________________________________________ 1. Substituted for the following by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. "(1) No enterprise shall abuse its dominant position." 2. Substituted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007] for the words, brackets and figure "under sub-section (1), if an enterprise". 3. Inserted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. 4. Effective date :20th May 2009- notified vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification No S.O.1241(E) dated 15.05.2009. Section 5 - Combination Regulation of combinations 5. Combination.-- The acquisition of one or more enterprises by one or more persons or merger or amalgamation of enterprises shall be a combination of such enterprises and persons or enterprises, if-- (a) any acquisition where-- (i) the parties to the acquisition, being the acquirer and the enterprise, whose control shares, voting rights or assets have been acquired or are being acquired jointly have,-- (A) either, in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than.....

Competition Act, 2002 Section 4

Title: Prohibition of Abuse of Dominant Position: Abuse of Dominant Position

State: Central

Year: 2002

.....provision of services, at a price which is below the cost, as may be determined by regulations, of production of the goods or provision of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors. 3[(c) "group" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 5.]] ___________________________________________ 1. Substituted for the following by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. "(1) No enterprise shall abuse its dominant position." 2. Substituted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007] for the words, brackets and figure "under sub-section (1), if an enterprise". 3. Inserted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. 4. Effective date :20th May 2009- notified vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification No S.O.1241(E) dated 15.05.2009.

Indian Easements Act, 1882 Section 43

Title: Extinction by Permanent Change in Dominant Heritage

State: Central

Year: 1882

Where, by, any permanent change in the dominant heritage, the burden on the servient heritage is materially increased and cannot be reduced by the servient owner without interfering with the lawful enjoyment Of the easement, the easement is extinguished unless-- (a) it was intended for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage, to whatever extent the easement should be used; or (b) the injury caused to the servient owner by the change is so slight that no reasonable person would complain of it; or (c) the easement is an easement of necessity. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to an easement entitling the dominant owner to support of the dominant heritage.

Competition Act, 2002 Section 27

Title: Orders by Commission After Inquiry into Agreements or Abuse of Dominant Position

State: Central

Year: 2002

.....section, against such members of the group.]] __________________________________________ 1. Proviso substituted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. Prior to substitution it read as: "Provided that in case any agreement referred to in section 3has been entered into by any cartel, the Commission shall impose upon each producer, seller, distributor, trader or service provider included in that cartel, a penalty equivalent to three times of the amount of profits made out of such agreement by the cartel or ten per cent, of the average of the turnover of the cartel for the last preceding three financial years, whichever is higher;" 2. Clause (c) omitted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. Prior to omission it read as: "(c) award compensation to parties in accordance with the provisions contained in section 34;" 3. Clause (f) omitted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. Prior to omission it read as: "(f) recommend to the Central Government for the division of an enterprise enjoying dominant position;" 4. Substituted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007] for the word.....

Competition Act, 2002 Section 19

Title: Inquiry into Certain Agreements and Dominant Position of Enterprise

State: Central

Year: 2002

.....determining whether an agreement has an appreciable adverse effect on competition under section 3, have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:-- (a) creation of barriers to new entrants in the market; (b) driving existing competitors out of the market; (c) foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market; (d) accrual of benefits to consumers; (e) improvements in production or distribution of goods or provision of services; (f) promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services. (4) The Commission shall, while inquiring whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position or not under section4, have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:-- (a) market share of the enterprise; (b) size and resources of the enterprise; (c) size and importance of the competitors; (d) economic power of the enterprise including commercial advantages over competitors; (e) vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or service network of such enterprises; (f) dependence of consumers on the enterprise; (g) monopoly or dominant position whether.....

Competition Act, 2002 Section 28

Title: Division of Enterprise Enjoying Dominant Position

State: Central

Year: 2002

..... (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or in any memorandum or articles of association, an officer of a company who ceases to hold office as such in consequence of the division of an enterprise shall not be entitled to claim any compensation for such cesser.] ___________________________________ 1. Substituted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007] for the words, brackets, letter and figures "Central Government, on recommendation under clause (f) of section 27" 2. Omitted by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [Act No. 39 of 2007]. Prior to omission it read as: "(d) the payment of compensation to any person who suffered any loss due to dominant position of such enterprise;" 3. Effective date :20th May 2009- notified vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification No S.O.1241(E) dated 15.05.2009.

Indian Easements Act, 1882 Section 19

Title: Transfer of Dominant Heritage Passes Easement

State: Central

Year: 1882

Where the dominant heritage is transferred or devolves, by act of parties or by operation of law, the transfer or devolution shall, unless a contrary intention appears, be deemed to pass the easement to the person in whose favour the transfer or devolution takes place. Illustration A has certain land to which a right of way is annexed. A lets the land to B for twenty years. The right of way vests in B and his legal representatives so long as the lease continues.

Indian Easements Act, 1882 Section 30

Title: Partition of Dominant Heritage

State: Central

Year: 1882

Where a dominant heritage is divided between two or more persons, the easement becomes annexed to each of the shares, but not so as to increase substantially the burden on the servient heritage: Provided that such annexation is consistent with the terms of the instrument, decree or revenue proceeding (if any) under which the division was made, and in the case of prescriptive rights, with the user during the prescriptive period. Illustrations (a) A house to which a right of way by a particular path is annexed is divided into two parts, one of which is granted to A, the other to B. Each is entitled, in respect of his part, to a right of way by tie same path. (b) A house to which is annexed the right of drawing water from a well to the extent of fifty buckets a day is divided into two distinct heritages, one of which is granted to A, the other to B. A and B are each entitled, in respect of his heritage, to draw from the well fifty buckets a day: but the amount drawn by both must not exceed fifty buckets a day. (c) A, having in respect of his house an easement of light, divides the house into three district heritages. Each of these continues to have the right to have its wind

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 60

Title: Market Domination

State: Central

Year: 2003

The Appropriate Commission may issue such directions as it considers appropriate to a licensee or a generating company if such licensee or generating company enters into any agreement or abuses its dominant position or enters into a combination which is likely to cause or causes an adverse effect on competition in electricity industry.

The Easements Act, 1882 Complete Act

State: Central

Year: 1882

.....his cattle and sheep; and the right of every such owner to use and consume the water for irrigating such land, and for the purposes of any manufactory situate thereon: Provided that he does not thereby cause material injury to other like owners. SECTION 08: WHO MAY IMPOSE EASEMENTS An easement may be imposed by any one in the circumstances, and to the extent, in and to which he may transfer his interest in the heritage on which the liability is to be imposed. SECTION 09: SERVIENT OWNERS Subject to the provisions of section 8-, a servient owner may impose on the servient heritage any easement that does not lessen the utility of the existing easement. But he cannot, without the consent of the dominant owner, impose an easement on the servient heritage which would lessen such utility. SECTION 10: LESSOR AND MORTGAGOR Subject to the provisions of section 8, a lessor may impose, on the property leased, any easement that does not derogate from the rights of the lessee as such, and a mortgagor may impose, on the property mortgaged, any easement that does not render the security insufficient. But a lessor or mortgagor cannot, without the consent of the lessee or mortgagee,.....