Advanced Search Results

Vedant Bio Sciences Through Advocate D.P.Pandey and Maneesh Dubey Vs. ...

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

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 provisions of goods and services. The impugned orders dated 12th November, 2013 in Case No. 50/2013 and 16th January, 2014 in Case No. 76/2013

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 … to the said query given by respondent no.2 reads as follows:- "Ans: Action was taken under the following Sections/Clause of the bye laws of All India Chess Federation, Section 9(n) : To take disciplinary action against its … to be organized by the rival body. - Published on 09th December, 2009."7. Ms. Palli submits that one of the petitioner’s made an enquiry under

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 … V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman 1. In this judgment, we shall be dealing with Appeal Nos. 20 of 2011, 22 of 2011, 23 of 2011, 12 of 2012, 19 of 2012, 20 of 2012, 8

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 … Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in case No.73 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent and quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the respondent

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 … and cheated him of Rs. 31,09,50,000/- towards sale proceeds of certain lands. A First Information Report (FIR) under Section 420 IPC was got registered at the instance of respondent no.2 against Sudipti and a few others on … J..1. The petitioner assails and seeks the quashing of the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by Sh. Prashant Saran, whole time member of the Securities and

K. Poomalai and Others Vs. the Director of Sugar, Chennai and Others

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

of the fact that nowhere, the term "cartel" was statutorily defined before the same was defined in the Competition Act, 2002. That is why, I am not looking into the dictionary meanings of the word "cartel" that were relied … price, negotiations with tenderer determined as per clauses (1) and (2) above are permissible subject to provisions in Section 10 of the Act.” 59.Keeping in mind the objects with which the Act was enacted, I am of … fixed by neighbouring states of Tamil Nadu. Prayer in W.P. No.25212 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

Forech India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

November, 2015 and 2nd December, 2015 remain the same and bind the respondents. The application is disposed of. Competition Act, 2002 Section 26(1) Validity of order Petitioner challenged order of first Respondent under Section 26(1) of the Act as well … 1. This petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 30th November, 2015 as under: 1. The petition impugns the order dated 6th November, 2013 of the respondent No.1 Competition Commission

P.L. Lamba (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)90TTJ(Del)388

the appellant shall not engage directly or indirectly in marketing and selling of the ice cream products in competition with BBLIL.In terms of clause 10 of the strategic alliance agreement the appellant and other constituents of the … further noted that the legislature has, in its wisdom, amended the provisions of section 28 by the Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 1-4-2003 to insert a new clause (va). The said clause provides that any sum received … Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Universal Radiators v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 800 (SC) has indicated the following norms to decide whether the