Advanced Search Results

Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Limited Vs. u.o.i and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

indulged in cartilisation, thereby influencing and rigging the prices, thus, violating the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the ‘Act’). The CCI, as a result, imposed severe penalties in the form of fines under … of the Act which prohibits three kinds of practices as anti-competitive, was taken note of as follows:51. “20. Chapter II of the Act deals with three kinds of practices which are treated as anti-competitive and prohibited. These … A.K. SIKRI, J.4 All these appeals are filed against the orders dated 20th December, 2013 passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by JCB India Ltd. (respondent No.1 … property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue or be sued. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the duties, powers and functions of CCI. As held in CCI vs.

Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by JCB India Ltd. (respondent No.1 … property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue or be sued. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the duties, powers and functions of CCI. As held in CCI vs.

C. Venkatachalam Vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Advocates Act, 1961 - Sections 29, 32, 33; Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - Sections 29, 31, 32 - Rule 2(b); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 302, 303, 304; Merchandise Marks Act, 1887; Immigration and Asylum Act - Section 84; Constitution of India - Article 19

the impugned judgment the High Court aptly observed that many statutes, such as, Sales Tax, Income Tax and Competition Act also permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities and those non-advocates cannot be said to practise … delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147 and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment because same questions of law are involved … to permit appearances in particular cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as … the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147 and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment because

Union of India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

entertain the complaint on the basis of the information of respondent No. 2 under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act). The Commission has rejected the stand of the petitioner that it is not an ‘enterprise’ within … the Act. If it is an ‘enterprise’ under Section 2(h) of the Act, the Commission gets jurisdiction under Chapter IV of the Act. 20. The Commission has taken note of Section 54 of the Act, which provides

Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and Ors. Vs.competiti ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) LPA6742017 Page 1 of 8 made under Section 26(1) of The Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) expressing prima facie opinion that the Board had restricted production by Indian … the Act. If it is an „enterprise‟ under Section 2(h) of the Act, the Commission gets jurisdiction under Chapter IV of the Act.20. The Commission has taken note of Section 54 of the Act, which provides that

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

order' or 'impugned orders') passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter 'CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as 'the Competition Act'). The impugned order dated 12th November, 2013 was passed pursuant to … is a body established under Section 7 of the Competition Act and performs the functions as mandated under Chapter IV of the Competition Act. CCI being a creature of the statute has to perform its functions and … also referred to as 'Ericsson'), inter alia, impugning orders dated 12th November, 2013 and 16th January, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the 'impugned order' or

Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

all these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter “the Act”). The specific challenge is to provisions of Sections 22(3), 27(b), 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 53E, … but not under Section 3 of the Act. Hearing on penalty is extended to all other cases under Chapter VI of the Act including for non-cooperation and gun-jumping, but not for penalties in respect of contraventions under … OF INDIA & ORS + W.P.(C) 6610/2014 + W.P.(C) 6634/2014, CM APPL. 20409/2014 + W.P.(C) 7087/2014, CM APPL. 16614/2014, CM APPL. 39827/2018 + W.P.(C) 7121/2014,

Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter ‘Commission’) whereby in exercise of powers under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘2002 Act’) an investigation as to whether their warranty policy has (i) potentially resulted in denial of … inspiration directly from the Directive Principles of State Policy in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution…Its core chapter on concentration of economic power singled out “large” undertakings (those whose assets, together with those of their ‘interconnected … HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50727 OF2019GM-RES) BETWEEN:1.

Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

the second appellant, Western Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary company of the first appellant cannot be bound by the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). In other words, having regard to the very object and purpose for … prohibits anti-competitive agreements and also abuse of dominant position. It also regulates combinations as explained in Section 6. Chapter 3 deals with the establishment of the CCI. Section 9 provides that the Selection Committee for appointment of … THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2845 of 2017 COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND