Advanced Search Results
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...
Delhi
Mar-30-2016
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 … of the Act provides for appointment of Secretary, experts, professionals and officers and other employees of CCI. 118. Section 18 of the Competition Act provides that the duty of CCI would be to "eliminate practices having adverse effect … 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:
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskChettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...
Chennai
Mar-29-2016
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 … Reference was also made to the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, and in particular, Regulation Nos.16, 18, 20, 21, 35, 41(1), 41(2), 41(5), 42, 45 and 46. The learned counsel referred to paragraphs 24 to
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShri Jose C. Mundadan vs.state & Anr.
Delhi
Mar-29-2019
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 … agreements‖ (Section3) and ―abuse of dominant position‖ (Section 4). The prime duty of the Commission, as indicated by Section 18, is ibesides promoting and sustaining competition and the interest of the consumers ensuring freedom of trade. The Commission
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
M/S Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd vs.competition Commission ...
Delhi
Mar-29-2019
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 … agreements‖ (Section3) and ―abuse of dominant position‖ (Section 4). The prime duty of the Commission, as indicated by Section 18, is ibesides promoting and sustaining competition and the interest of the consumers ensuring freedom of trade. The Commission
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJose C Mundadan vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Delhi
Mar-29-2019
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 … agreements‖ (Section3) and ―abuse of dominant position‖ (Section 4). The prime duty of the Commission, as indicated by Section 18, is ibesides promoting and sustaining competition and the interest of the consumers ensuring freedom of trade. The Commission
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCompetition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. .
Supreme Court of India
Apr-17-2018
Land Acquisition
(in short, “the Tribunal”) setting aside the order passed by the Competition Commission under section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 (in short, referred to as “the Act”) whereby penalty of Rupees One Crore 2 was imposed on the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskArcelormittal India Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta
Supreme Court of India
Oct-04-2018
Land Acquisition
that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that … NCLT extended the duration of the corporate insolvency resolution process by 90 days beyond the initial period of 180 days, i.e., upto 3 29.4.2018. The Resolution Professional therefore issued the first addendum to the request for proposal,
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskUnion of India Vs. Namit Sharma
Supreme Court of India
Sep-03-2013
Right to Information
of separation of powers and independence of judiciary and held that the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 as enacted may not ensure an independent judiciary to decide the cases under the Act and accordingly directed … of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer are akin to courts. He referred to Section 18 of the Act to show that Information Commissions have been vested with the powers of a civil court … trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskChalisgaon Education Society and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ...
Mumbai Aurangabad
Nov-26-2014
Right to Information
of separation of powers and independence of judiciary and held that the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 as enacted may not ensure an independent judiciary to decide the cases under the Act and accordingly directed … Information Commissioners) is to be done by the Chief Information Commissioner and he can assign any complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act to any one of the State Information Commissioners including himself and an order passed … trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.
Delhi
Apr-10-2019
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, … instrumentalities are commonly informants or opposite parties in proceedings before the CCI. The Ld. Senior Counsel argues that Section 18 of the Act shows that the regulatory and adjudicatory functions are discharged by adjudicatory function under Section 3
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »