Advanced Search Results

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India a ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Competition

Acts : Competition Act, 2002 - Section 19 read with Section 26(1)

Limited („JSPL), Respondent No. 3, invoked the provisions of Section 19 read with Section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 („CA') by providing information to the CCI alleging that the Petitioner SAIL had inter alia entered into an

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: … the light of the information disclosed by Intex. He then referred to the information filed by Intex under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act and submitted that the same clearly alleged that Ericsson was placed in a position

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

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 … is not covered by the Competition Act. She further submits that the power to make a reference under Section 19(1)(b) of the Competition Act is vested with the Central Government, or the State Government or the statutory authority.

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 … road transport. 4. The second respondent filed an information before the first respondent, Competition Commission of India, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the petitioner to enquire into the

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

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 … of Anti Competition Agreements” (Section3) or “Abuse of dominant position” (Section 4). The Competition Commission is empowered by Section 19 to hold inquiry into the alleged contravention of the provisions of the law, inter alia, on its own

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, Bangalore Vs. Kannada Grahakara Ko ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : MRTP

The 8th Respondent By Holding That There Is A Prima Faice Case Against The Petitioner For Violating The Competition Act, 2002.) 1. The subject matter of challenge in this petition is a direction dated 18.10.2012 issued under S.26(1) of … that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 having approached the respondent No.8 - the Competition Commission of India, under Section 19(1) of the Act, to institute an enquiry against the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 7, by passing

Jyoti Sawroop Arora Vs. The Competition Commission of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

under the RERD Act over the subject matter of the grievance is not felt. No costs. Petition dismissed. Competition Act, 2002 Section 3 Contravention of Act This petition challenges order of respondent no. 1 Competition Commission of India (CCI) holding … a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a Statutory Authority or information received under Section 19, closing the matter forthwith if of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case. It was stated

Dlf Ltd Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

and Anr., (2010) 10 SCC.744. He submits that in this case, while dealing with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, the Supreme Court has clearly drawn a distinction between the administrative/inquisitorial functions of the commission, and its adjudicatory … 26 of the Competition Act, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows: "26. Procedure for inquiry under section.19. - (1) On receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory

East Line Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. Borooah Cancer Institute and o ...

Court : Guwahati

Subject : ConstitutionContract

Acts : Competition Act, 2003 - Sections 1 and 54; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 299

amount to abuse of dominant position which will be violative of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The dominant position has been defined under the Competition Act, 2002 as a position of strength enjoyed by … such the non-mentioning of the total space to be allotted is irrelevant. Likewise; it is .submitted that Clause 19 of the, NIT: is also vague;. Clause 19 reads as follows :-' 19. That the tenderer will be