Advanced Search Results

Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Limited Vs. u.o.i and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

indulged in cartilisation, thereby influencing and rigging the prices, thus, violating the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the ‘Act’). The CCI, as a result, imposed severe penalties in the form of fines under … on behalf of the appellants made their submission almost on the same lines, albeit, with further elaborations on 36 certain aspects, some of which are taken note of hereafter. Mr. Jaiveer Shergil, who argued for the appellant-Om

Namrata Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ot ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Land Acquisition

General, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi under Section 41 (2) read with Section 36 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the œCompetition Act?), and further a direction has been sought for upon the Competition Commission of

Premier Rubber Mills vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

on record, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed an order dated 06.11.2013 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 recording a prima facie opinion that the acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties (OP) mentioned therein is … the information/documents were called for in exercise of the duties and powers conferred under Section 42(2) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. W.P.(C) Nos.1416/2016 & 1969/2016 Page 2 of 27 4. In response to the same, the

Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. Vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

on record, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed an order dated 06.11.2013 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 recording a prima facie opinion that the acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties (OP) mentioned therein is … the information/documents were called for in exercise of the duties and powers conferred under Section 42(2) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. W.P.(C) Nos.1416/2016 & 1969/2016 Page 2 of 27 4. In response to the same, the

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 … the advertisement by the Appellant, each of the five multi-storied buildings was to consist of 19 floors and 368 apartments. As per the advertisement, the construction was to be completed within a period of 36 months. It

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 … Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The aforesaid amendment was made purportedly in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 36 read with Section 11 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. By the aforesaid amendment, every

Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

any W.P.(C) 3044/2016 Page 7 of 27 information, and as an illustration, reference to Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which … made to him”. The Advocates Act, 1961 also has provisions for conducting suo motu inquiry. Section 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically provides that the Bar Council of India, “on receipt of a complaint

Bcl Old Co Limited and Others Vs. Basf Plc and Others

Court : UK Supreme Court

Subject : Education

appeal and his oral submissions) from 21 November 2001. However, on 20 June 2003 section 47A of the Competition Act 1998, as inserted by section 18(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002, came into force, giving BCL the alternative … been infringed": see e.g. sections 31, 32, 36, 46 and 47A. Such a decision is explicitly distinguished in section 36(1) from a requirement imposed by the OFT on "an undertaking which is a party to the agreement to

Saurashtra Rachanatmak Samiti Thro. Secretary and as Autho. Per Vs. St ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Trusts and Societies

Acts : Bombay Trust Act, 1950 - Sections 36, 36(1), 36(2) and 36(3); Companies (Court) Rules, 1959

Reported in : (2007)2GLR1649

the impugned order suffered from legal infirmity taking into consideration the principles applicable for exercise of powers under Section 36 of the Bombay Trust Act, 1950 and the impugned order was required to be quashed and set aside … obtaining the best value of the properties of the trust the trustees ought to have applied for inviting competitive bids and the Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have, instead of inviting only objections, invited open bids after

Koninklijke Philips Electronics n.v. Vs.rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

issue cannot be decided in the present suit as the same is barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002 which specifically provides that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect … part of the sync word in combination with an adjacent code word.37. Decoding device as claimed in Claim 36, characterized in that the detection means (116) are arranged for detecting 26-bit sync words corresponding to a bit