Advanced Search Results

K. L. Suneja Vs. Dr. (mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga (d) Through Her Lr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

complainant and / or the public in general. The MRTP Act was repealed by Section 66 of the Competition Act, 2002 which was brought into force w.e.f. 1st September 2009. Chapter VIII-A introduced subsequently provided for establishment of an … amount was made over to the complainant on 7th May 2016, in compliance with this court’s orders dated 8th and 26th April 2016. The NCLAT, by the impugned order, directed as follows: “It is accordingly found that

Espn Star Sports Vs. Global Broadcast News Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsMedia and Communication

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13, 14, 18, 19, 30, 37, 37(3), 39, 39A, 51, 52, 52B, 53, 55, 58, 61, 61(1), 61(2), 64, 65 and 66; Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 1, Rule 9; Constitution of India - Article 19(1)

Reported in : LC2008(3)257; 2008(38)PTC477(Del)

news channel and such programme is also liberally interspersed with commercials. This would also amount to a direct competition with ESS since ESS also comes out with sporting news. c. He submitted that while fair dealing cannot … C. A. on the ground that the license Agreement dated July 26, 2002 produced in Court redacted crucial sections of the Agreement, particularly, those dealing … in his judgment dated 18th February, 2008 held as follows:40. No doubt, Chapter VIII deals with a species of rights known as broadcast reproduction rights. … Australia from December 26, 2007 onwards till March 8, 2008 and therefore, no other person, entity and/or … Single Judge had dismissed the entire suit of the appellant/plaintiff for non-compliance of Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. After the arguments were heard in this appeal, both the

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Parties Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and Ors. Vs.competition Commission of India and Anr.

Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Parties Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

In Re: Alleged Cartelization by Steel Producers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India Vs. Delhi Internationa ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986); (iii) Which are within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003); (iv) relating to an order of eviction which is appealable under section 28K of the … Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997) shall, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), be the Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of this … fees [Section 13(1)(b)].; c. Determine the passengers service fee levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules 1937 notified under the Aircraft Act 1934 [Section

M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd. versus the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : [2024]11S.C.R.1525

The Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017; The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; The Customs Act, 1962; Competition Act, 2002; The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; The Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; The Bureau of Indian … enhance their efficiency and since these articles are components/accessories of BTS/antenna which are admittedly “capital goods” falling under Chapter 85 within sub-clause (i) of Rule 2(a)(A) of CENVAT Rules, these items consequently are covered by the definition … [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1525 : 2024 INSC 880 M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (Civil

Sgivs Global LLC vs Union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

is wholly misconceived. The concept of predatory pricing is argued to be covered under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Inorder to invoke Section 4, the essential ingredient is argued to be theexistence of a dominant position in … 2, has made the following submissions:14.1 Learned Counsel has made a reference to Clause B (II) (e) of Chapter XV of the RFP titled Selection of Bidders/Award of Contract read with Annexure K titled Financial Bid, to … strictly on the basis of the lowest ServiceSigning Date:13.05.2026 W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 8 of 18Fee quoted, and no additional criteria such as financial viability or

Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulator ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Counsel have also argued, based on Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 27(d) of the Competition Act, 2002, that no power is given by the TRAI Act for interference with licence conditions, which amount to a … the network of the service provider;”; (bc) “calling consumer” means a consumer who initiates a voice call;”; After Chapter IV of the principal regulations, the following chapter shall be inserted, namely :- |“CHAPTER V” | | | … by enacting a second amendment to the Quality of Service Regulations dated 8.11.2012 by which a service provider is liable to pay, by way of

Union of India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Parties Union of India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others