Advanced Search Results

Competition Commission of India vs.m/s. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of the CCI, stating that GIL had abused its dominant position, in terms of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 („Act‟). 1.3 The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, held that inasmuch as the direction issued … dated 30th May, 2013 passed by the CCI, dismissing GIL‟s application, seeking the quashing LPA1372014 Page 1 of 38 of a report dated 26th February 2013, submitted by the Director General („DG‟) of the CCI, stating that

Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

India (CCI), which was envisioned to maintain adequate competition in the market and protect consumer welfare. Further, the Competition Act, 2002 was later enacted which provided certain powers of Civil Courts to the CCI for effective enquiry and adjudication.37. … to be remedied by statutory amendment excluding direct appeals to this Court. 38 • There should be proper mechanism for removal of members.86. The aforementioned … the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had originally approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 (5- A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act,

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 … To Home (DTH) License should be rejected since it would violate Articles 38 and 39-C of the Constitution of India, and since the rule of … 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

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 enterprise from being investigated against has to necessarily yield to larger public good; (l) invited attention to Section 38 of the Competition Act conferring the CCI with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record

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 … malpractice or misconduct on the part of public servants, from whatever source, would be termed as a complaint.‖ 38. She submitted that in terms of Clause (i) of Paragraph 3.2.1 of the CVC Manual, complaints and allegations

Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs. Uoi and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Airports

Acts : Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 - Section 13; Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Sections 22A, 28K; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6; Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Section 5(1); Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section 9; Indian Companies Act, 1913 - Section 202

Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986; (iii) which are within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002; (iv) relating to an order of eviction which is appealable under section 28K of the Airports Authority of … case, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court was considering the words every order used in Section 38(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In that context their Lordships have held thus:- 3. The object of

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: … particular, he drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 37 and 38 of the said decision wherein the Supreme Court had held an order

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 … of this Court was whether the State Bar Council was an ‘aggrieved party’ to maintain an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act 196140. Section 38 provides that “any aggrieved person” may prefer an appeal before this

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Intex Technologies (India) ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

claimed that the plaintiff is one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world. The Ericsson group is active in more than 180 countries having annual sales of USD35Billion (approximately) for the year 2013. The Ericsson’s main … plaintiff has filed the interim application being I.A. No.6735/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned application.3. The facts stated in the plaint