Advanced Search Results

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 … aspect regarding grant or exercise of any right pertaining to a patent except to ensure the compliance with Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. He referred to the decision of this Court in the Union of … 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:

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 … If the Competition Act has not come into force or at least the relevant portion, as for instance Section 3 which deals with anticompetitive agreements has not come into force, then the licensing authority need not refer to

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

The allegations against MMF manufacturers, who were alleged to be contravening the provisions of Section 3(3)(a)(b)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) in a nutshell were as follows: (a) Price fixation of MMF products

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 … to provide quality controls, germination, distribution and sale of different varieties and not to regulate price. In contrast, Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act confers power on the Central Government to make suitable orders, inter alia, “for

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 no

interglobe Aviation Limited Vs the Secretary Competition Commission of ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - sections 11(1), 33(1)(d),66 ; Competition Act, 2002 (`CA'). - sections 26(1),66(1), 66(3), 66(4), 66(5)

order dated 16th June 2010 passed by the Competition Commission of India (`CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (`CA').2. The background to the present petitions is that by an order dated 13 th February 2009, the … formed a prima facie opinion that the alleged practice was a restrictive trade practice as defined under Section 33(1)(d) and 33(1)(j) of the MRTP Act. Consequently in exercise of its powers under Regulation 18 of the Monopolies

Delhi Development Authority and Ors. Vs. Competition Commission of Ind ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

by the respondent No.2 alleging contravention by the appellant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, vide order dated 11 th June, 2013 under Section 26(1) of the said Act directed its Director General

M/S. Vikash Trading Company, Represented by Its Proprietor, C.S. Bohar ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

cannot render the Final Findings, without referring the matter to the Competition Commission, under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. The issuance of the Disclosure Statement, by … fresh Disclosure Statement, in terms of Rule 16 of the said Rules. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is engaged in the business … Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, read with Section 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and to quash the same in respect of goods

Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter ‘Commission’) whereby in exercise of powers under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘2002 Act’) an investigation as to whether their warranty policy has (i) potentially resulted in denial of … Commission on 11.02.2019 u/s 19(1)(a) of the 2002 Act alleging that petitioner’s ‘warranty policy’ is in contravention of Section 3 & 4 of the 2002 Act in as much as they were refusing to provide the warranty in