Advanced Search Results

Hemant Sharma and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI); Competition Act, 2002 - Section 19(1)(b); Constitution of India - Articles 226, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g); Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Central, State or Provincial Act; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 154(3), 156(3); Competition Commission Act, 2002

so. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits, by reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, and the preamble of the Competition Act, that the said Act has been enacted to deal with commercial matters only. The … policy and conduct of respondent No.2 may, therefore, call for examination by the Competition Commission constituted under the Competition Act, 2002.14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West … 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of

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 … on by other participants in markets, in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. (See the Preamble of the Act) 14. The Commission is not merely concerned with the aspect of breach of contract 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, … Article 38(2) of the Constitution read with the statement of objects and reasons in the amending Act and preamble of the Act.50. It was submitted that a regulatory body or agency can be defined as a ―public … IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2018 Pronounced on:10. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 11467/2018, CM APPL. 44376-44378/2018 MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, … conferred on the RBI by the earlier statutes referred to above.35. The Preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 itself recognizes the fact that since the … fact that information sought by the appellant is sensitive and cannot be disclosed, it could also harm the competitive position of the co-operative bank. Therefore, exemption from disclosure of the Information is available under Section 8(1)(d) of

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 … loss but only inconvenience has been caused to the consumers. It was further argued, based on the amended Preamble to the TRAI Act, that the Impugned Regulation only protects the interest of the consumers of the telecom … Amendment) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Regulation”), notified on 16.10.2015, (to take effect from 1.1.2016), by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

M/S. Vikash Trading Company, Represented by Its Proprietor, C.S. Bohar ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

others Vs.Union of India and others, 186 (2012) Delhi Law Times 17, it had been held that the preamble of the Competition Act, 2002, when closely read, shows that the said Act has been enacted to provide, … cannot render the Final Findings, without referring the matter to the Competition Commission, under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. The issuance of the Disclosure Statement, by … of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, read with Section 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975,

Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

the bench to adopt “Appreciable Adverse Effect on Trade & Commerce [AAETC].” borrowed from section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The difference between enactment of AAETC before and after the impugned Law will provide the impact on Trade … state by interpretative process. We have reached a stage that every law must be tested with reference to preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy. As held in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana [herein after ‘Atam … existence, and any action taken thereunder will be an infringement of Article 19 (1) (g) Himmatlal’s case and Laxmanappa’s case. The result will be the

Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Reliance Energy Limited and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Electricity

Acts : Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 - Sections 22, 22(1) and 22(2); Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 2 and 21(2); Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948; Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 2(15), 2(17), 2(61), 14, 14(2), 42, 42(2), 43, 60, 62(1) and 79(2); Electricity Act, 1903 - Sections 2 and 4(1); Indian Factories Act, 1881; Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 - Sections 3(10); Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution, open access), Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 3

Reported in : 2008LC(SC)527; 2008(9)SCALE824; (2008)10SCC321

economical and equitable manner and, in general, against the provisions of Section 22(1)(d) enjoining the Commission to promote competition, efficiency and economy in the activities of the electricity industry.12. In its aforesaid judgment and order MERC also … on 23.7.2002 and the same was registered as Case No. 14 of 2002. Mr. Chagla submitted that in its said petition BSES Ltd. prayed for … were concluded, also specifically refers to the promotion of competition in its Preamble.13. It was further held that strictly speaking there was nothing in either … Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'MERC'), under Section 22(2)(e) and (n) of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ERC Act'), complaining of alleged encroachment by Tata Power Company Limited (hereinafter

Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [Under Article 143(1) of the Const ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution Of India - Articles 143(1), 141, 137; Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order 40 Rule 1

to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. It should conform to the norms which are rational, informed with reasons and guided by … action which may be taken by other investigating agencies under Income Tax Act, 1961, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and other similar statutes."It needs to be noticed that a review petition came to be filed by the … or non-citizens, the equality of status and opportunity referred to in the preamble to our Constitution. The language of Article 14 is couched in negative … of the people was squarely rebutted in In Re: Delhi Laws Act, 1912 (supra), where it was observed that "the legislature as a body cannot

Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

harmonize competition policy with other governmental policies. Pursuant to same, the 2002 Act came to be enacted. Its preamble reads as under: “An act to provide, keeping in view of the economic development of the country for … 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