Advanced Search Results

Sajjan Khaitan Proprietor Vs. Eastern India Motion Picture Association ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

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 … and Transfer (BOT) basis. 2. The petitioner entered into a licence agreement with the third respondent Port on 14.09.2006, for establishing the common user coal terminal, with an investment of Rs.350 crores in building and commissioning the

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 … of every kind only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, Items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads, it cannot

P.G. Narayanan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary, Mi ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : CommercialConstitution

Acts : Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 3; West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 32, 38, 39C, 142 and 226

Reported in : 2005(3)CTC582; (2005)3MLJ210; [2005]62SCL586(Mad)

bias and since there is imminent danger of the application being considered favourably violating the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a quia timet action. Learned counsel further submitted that though specific allegations … number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International … has been relaxed by the courts to vindicate a legal injury or a legal wrong caused to a section of the people by grave violation of any statutory and constitutional provisions. At the same time, the Supreme

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

in proceedings initiated suo moto by it since it is a dominus litus in such proceedings;49 47 The Competition Act 2002; Section 53S; Also see the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009; Regulation 51 48 (2010) 10 SCC744[104]. 49 … 11 AERA Act; proviso to Section 13(1A) 12 AERA Act; Section 13(3) Page 7 of 53 PART A7 Section 14 confers AERA with the power to call for an information and conduct investigation regarding the activities of a

In Re: Ntpc Ltd.

Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC

Subject : Land Acquisition

setting up of power exchange is in the nature of cartel and is, therefore, in violation of the Competition Act, 2002 and, therefore, it is necessary to obtain prior approval of the Competition Commission of India under this Act. … objectors in person.7. Shri Jindal in his objections has stated that the application is not in accordance with Sections 14, 15 and 52 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has been made without fulfilling the norms of

Namrata Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ot ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Land Acquisition

General, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi under Section 41 (2) read with Section 36 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the œCompetition Act?), and further a direction has been sought for upon the Competition Commission of … result. Response to the said advertisement was very poor. Consequently, the State Government by the Government Order dated 14th November, 2008 took another decision to change the policy of disinvestment in the Sugar Corporation and accordingly, the

Shri Jose C. Mundadan vs.state & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the … Rs.35,20,000/- against FDA and Rs.19,25,000/- against the petitioner at Rs.25,000/- per day for the period of default, i.e., 14.08.2013 to 30.10.2013.10. The copy of the order imposing penalty was statedly served on the petitioner on 22.11.2014. He

Jose C Mundadan vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the … Rs.35,20,000/- against FDA and Rs.19,25,000/- against the petitioner at Rs.25,000/- per day for the period of default, i.e., 14.08.2013 to 30.10.2013.10. The copy of the order imposing penalty was statedly served on the petitioner on 22.11.2014. He

M/S Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd vs.competition Commission ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the … Rs.35,20,000/- against FDA and Rs.19,25,000/- against the petitioner at Rs.25,000/- per day for the period of default, i.e., 14.08.2013 to 30.10.2013.10. The copy of the order imposing penalty was statedly served on the petitioner on 22.11.2014. He