Advanced Search Results

Shri Jose C. Mundadan vs.state & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : 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 … on certain combinations (Section 31); acts taking place outside India but having an effect on competition in India (Section 32); power to issue interim orders (Section 33); compensation in case of contravention of orders of Commission (Section 42-A);

M/S Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd vs.competition Commission ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : 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 … on certain combinations (Section 31); acts taking place outside India but having an effect on competition in India (Section 32); power to issue interim orders (Section 33); compensation in case of contravention of orders of Commission (Section 42-A);

Jose C Mundadan vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : 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 … on certain combinations (Section 31); acts taking place outside India but having an effect on competition in India (Section 32); power to issue interim orders (Section 33); compensation in case of contravention of orders of Commission (Section 42-A);

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 … read as follows :'i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution can entertain a petition filed by … has been relaxed by the courts to vindicate a legal injury or a legal wrong caused to a section of the people by grave violation of any statutory and constitutional provisions. At the same time, the Supreme

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 … 2nd group consists of Appeal No. 23 of 2011 which relates to CCI Case No. 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 of 2010 in which Shri Pushkar Dutt Sharma and Smt. Kiran Sharma were the Informants.

Dhanraj Pillay Vs. Hockey India

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : Education

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)818

and ammonium nitrate directly or indirectly. In the absence of such agreement, VBC can give directly or indirectly, competition to the company by (1) either manufacturing itself or providing knowledge and management skills to an associate to … undisturbed and freely for a period of five years, which were of intangible nature entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. and, therefore, assessee may be allowed depreciation.4.12 The AO rejected the assessee's alternative claim also … before the CIT(A).2.1 Issues involved in ITA No. 654/Ahd/2005 for asst. yr. 2002-03 The issues involved in this appeal were admitted to be read as

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 … Competition Act for any alleged abuse of dominant position by a patentee. 32. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina referred to Section 60 of the Competition Act which … 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:

Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India Vs. Delhi Internationa ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

in proceedings initiated suo moto by it since it is a dominus litus in such proceedings;49 47 The Competition Act 2002; Section 53S; Also see the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009; Regulation 51 48 (2010) 10 SCC744[104]. 49 … the 66 (1924) 1 KB171(CA) 67 1950 SCR62168 AIR1960SC60669 (2002) 5 SCC685 70 “Ordinance” 71 1950 SCR621[11]. Page 32 of 53 PART D Ordinance did not confer a quasi-judicial power: first, whether the opinion can be revised

Google Inc. and Ors Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

on 20th November, 2014. Since the respondent No.2 Vishal Gupta, on whose complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002, Case No.06/2014 aforesaid against the appellants had been registered, did not appear inspite of advance copy stated to … the customers of the respondent No.2 is irrelevant; (t) invited attention to Section 2(h) defining ―enterprise‖ and to Section 32 of the Act to contend that the acts in violation of the provisions of the Act even if