Advanced Search Results

Girish Chandra Gupta and ors. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 12B, 10, 36B; Competition Act, 2002 - Section 66(1)

Trade Practices Commission (for short 'the MRTP Commission') constituted under the MRTP Act. By Section 66(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, the MRTP Act was repealed and the MRTP Commission was dissolved. Section 66(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 … compensation applications filed by the appellants. They contended that the appellants had not initiated separate proceedings either under Section 10 or under Section 36B of the MRTP Act alleging unfair trade practices by the respondents and in the

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

M/S Oracle Drugs and Others Vs. Secretary, Department of Health and Fa ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Kumar Giri

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)103TTJ(Chennai)352

to each of the assessees was for the purpose of avoiding immediate competition, the same was in the nature of non-compete fees. It clearly shows … clauses are outside the purview of the non-compete agreement entered by the assessee.11. The amendment in the Finance Act, 2002 proves that the above clauses are not applicable to the assessee's case and Section 28(va) is applicable with … law should have been considered also under the provisions of Section 17(3)(i) or alternatively under the provisions of Section 10(3) as a casual and non-recurring receipt. (v) The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that even otherwise under

Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : MRTP

respondent and quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.) The petitioner operates a coal handling terminal at the third respondent Port, Kamarajar Port Limited. The petitioner was … passed by the Commission under Section 26(1) of the Act, dated 04.01.2016, is impugned in this Writ Petition. 10. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the various provisions of the Act including the

Monsanto Technology Llc and Ors. Vs.nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

without prejudice to termination notice. CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 50 of 96 65. The Parliament had enacted the Competition Act, 2002, some of the provisions of which came into force on 31.3.2003, its objective being to provide, keeping in … patent covers a biotechnology invention as laid out in claims 1-27 of the granted patent. In view of Section 10(4)(c), these claims represent the scope of the invention for which protection is sought. The Plaintiff No.1 has specifically

M/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and O ...

Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal

Subject : Land Acquisition

the above-said clauses were described as ex-facie unfair and discriminatory attracting the provisions of section 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter "Act"). It was urged that this amounted to abuse of dominant position by the Appellant. A complaint … of 2013 which are essentially against the alleged Supplementary Order passed by CCI on 3rd January 2013 and 10th January 2013. 5. While Appeal No. 20 of 2011 is against the order by CCI dated 12th August,

Competition Commission of India vs.m/s. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of the CCI, stating that GIL had abused its dominant position, in terms of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 („Act‟). 1.3 The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, held that inasmuch as the direction issued … existence or any tacit collusion or understanding within the market so that any such provisions can be invoked.” 10. From paragraph 9.49 of the report, the DG began discussing the allegations relating to abuse of dominant position

Google Inc. and Ors Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

on 20th November, 2014. Since the respondent No.2 Vishal Gupta, on whose complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002, Case No.06/2014 aforesaid against the appellants had been registered, did not appear inspite of advance copy stated to … Sarathy AIR1953SC53and State of Bihar Vs. D. N. Ganguly AIR1958SC1018laying down that the power of the Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) is administrative in nature and since the said Act does

Delhi Development Authority Vs. P.R. Samanta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

restrictive trade practices and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It has now been replaced by the Competition Act, 2002. The terms ‘monopolistic trade practice’ as well as ‘restrictive trade practice’ have been defined and undoubtedly the Commission … jurisdiction and power to inquire into any restrictive trade practice or any monopolistic trade practice in view of Section 10 of the Act and also into unfair trade practice as stipulated in Section 36A. Considering the submissions advanced