Advanced Search Results

interglobe Aviation Limited Vs the Secretary Competition Commission of ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - sections 11(1), 33(1)(d),66 ; Competition Act, 2002 (`CA'). - sections 26(1),66(1), 66(3), 66(4), 66(5)

order dated 16th June 2010 passed by the Competition Commission of India (`CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (`CA').2. The background to the present petitions is that by an order dated 13 th February 2009, the … order dated 13 th February 2009, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (`MRTP Commission') took cognizance, under Section 11(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (`MRTP Act'), of reports in the print and visual

Vijay Gupta Vs. M/S. Paper Merchants Association and Others

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

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 … or the provision of services.9) Ultimately, the D.G. came to the conclusion that there was a cartel like 11 behavior on the part of the bidders and that the factors necessary for the formation of cartel existed

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

the impugned orders are perverse? Jurisdiction of CCI to entertain the complaints of Micromax and Intex under the Competition Act, 2002 84. The central challenge in these petitions is to the jurisdiction of the CCI to entertain complaints filed … the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (hereafter 'TRIPS'). 122. By virtue of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2002, Section 48 of the Act, which specifies the rights granted to a patentee, was substituted to read as under: … 1991 Supplement 1 SCC 240, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider controversy whether in view of Section 11 of the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956, it had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order

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

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

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 … and references therein to the “Central Government” shall be construed as references to the Government company.” 35 36. Section 11 is significant for the purpose of the case. It read: “11. Management, etc., of coal mines.-(1) The general

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 … 17. While admitting this appeal on 7th February, 2014, this Court passed the following order: “Admit. LPA1372014 Page 11 of 38 Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 31st March, 2014. In the meantime, in view of

Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP/Competition Laws

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 4, 4(1), 11, 12A, 12B, 12B(1), 12B(3), 12B(4), 36C and 36D; ;Companies Act, 1956; ;Consumer Protection Act, 1986; ;Contract Act; ;Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41; ;Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; ;NPA Act; ;Clayton Act, 1914 - Section 4; ;Competition Act, 2002; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 9 - Order 1, Rule 8; ;Constitution of India - Article 226; ;Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 - Regulation 77

Reported in : 2010CompLR43,[2010]100SCL1(Delhi)

dated 13.11.2000 and direct the Commission (now the succeeding authority being Competition Commission of India under the The Competition Act, 2002) to proceed in accordance with law.52. The petition is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own … Del 23. In terms of the judgment, a distinction was drawn between Section 12B on one side and Section 11 and Section 36C on the other side of the said Act inasmuch as there was no requirement for

Dlf Ltd Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

with law. The Supreme Court, in the Competition Commission of India case when considering Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002, noted that [t]he provisions of Section 19 do not suggest that any notice is required to be given … the complainant. It had been argued that SEBI could legitimately direct such investigations only if it had, under Section 11 (of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, hereafter called the SEBI Act) reasonable grounds to