Advanced Search Results

Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property

monopoly over keywords, which is anti competitive and hence would become a restrictive trade practice, disallowed by the Competition Act, 2002.29. From the rival contentions briefly presented above, it is seen that fortunately, there are not many serious … defined in Section 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and coupled with the provisions of Section 29(6), the Act does not confer protection against the use of a trademark as an adword. The protection applies

Arcelormittal India Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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 … a given situation the authorities functioning under FERA find that there are attempts to overreach the provision of Section 29(1) (a), the authority can always lift the veil and examine whether the parties have entered into any fraudulent,

Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

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 18 Commission of India under … xxx xxx xxx 9 (10) “information memorandum” means a memorandum prepared by resolution professional under sub-section (1) of Section 29; xxx xxx xxx (26) “resolution plan” means a plan proposed by resolution applicant for insolvency resolution of the

M/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and O ...

Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Parties M/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others

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 … took place on 18.06.2012, i.e., three days after the closing of tender. 29.She vehemently contended that it is a clear case of cartelisation by three

Competition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. .

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Parties Competition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. .

Sgivs Global LLC vs Union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

is wholly misconceived. The concept of predatory pricing is argued to be covered under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Inorder to invoke Section 4, the essential ingredient is argued to be theexistence of a dominant position in … * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI% Judgment reserved on: 29.04.2026Judgment pronounced on: 13.05.2026Judgment uploaded on: 13.05.2026+ W.P.(C) 5286/2026, CM APPL. 25966/2026 & CM APPL. SGIVS GLOBAL LLC .....Petitioner

Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulator ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Counsel have also argued, based on Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 27(d) of the Competition Act, 2002, that no power is given by the TRAI Act for interference with licence conditions, which amount to a … also argued that such penalty was not authorized by either Section 36 or by Section 11, and, unlike Section 29 of the Act, no such authority is to be found in the said Sections.11. Under the broad head

Biswanath Rice Mill Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and ors.

Court : Orissa

Subject : CivilCommercial

Acts : State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Sections 29

Reported in : AIR2004Ori191

of the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, 2002 (1) Supreme 404 to show that the Supreme Court passed orders in … in Mahesh Chandra's case place unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of power by the Financial Corporation contained in Section 29 of the Act by requiring the defaulting unit holder to be associated or consulted at every stage in … the OSFC that the OSFC has failed to dispose of the unit of the petitioner since no suitable competitive offerers were available and the petitioner has also hot secured any such proposal for the OSFC. By the

Brs Ventures Investments Ltd. Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002, the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to … as well as the High Court, both came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, the suit of the appellant was not maintainable.5. We have gone through the provisions of