Advanced Search Results

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Parties Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of India and Another

East Line Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. Borooah Cancer Institute and o ...

Court : Guwahati

Subject : ConstitutionContract

Acts : Competition Act, 2003 - Sections 1 and 54; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 299

amount to abuse of dominant position which will be violative of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The dominant position has been defined under the Competition Act, 2002 as a position of strength enjoyed by

Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Parties Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Director, Chennai Vs. The Competition Commission of India, Rep., by its Registrar, New Delhi and Others

Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP/Competition Laws

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 4, 4(1), 11, 12A, 12B, 12B(1), 12B(3), 12B(4), 36C and 36D; ;Companies Act, 1956; ;Consumer Protection Act, 1986; ;Contract Act; ;Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41; ;Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; ;NPA Act; ;Clayton Act, 1914 - Section 4; ;Competition Act, 2002; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 9 - Order 1, Rule 8; ;Constitution of India - Article 226; ;Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 - Regulation 77

Reported in : 2010CompLR43,[2010]100SCL1(Delhi)

dated 13.11.2000 and direct the Commission (now the succeeding authority being Competition Commission of India under the The Competition Act, 2002) to proceed in accordance with law.52. The petition is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own … Act are thus in addition to and distinct from those before a civil court particularly in view of Section 4(1) and Section 12B of the said Act. Para 10 of the said judgment reads as under:10. But although

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 … Anti-Dumping duties, if any, as recommended by the first respondent Designated Authority. 4. It has also been stated that the assessment of duties upon the … 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

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India a ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Competition

Acts : Competition Act, 2002 - Section 19 read with Section 26(1)

Matched in: Parties Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India and ors

M/S Oracle Drugs and Others Vs. Secretary, Department of Health and Fa ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Indiabulls Financial Services Limited and anr. Vs. ------------------- ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

the Petitioner Companies may be asked to give an undertaking for necessary compliance of the Provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 with regard to the proposed Scheme.13. The Petitioner Companies in response to the Representation Affidavit dated 21 November … CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This second motion Petition has been filed under Section 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) by the Petitioner Companies seeking sanction and approval of … DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:12.12.2012. COMPANY PETITION NO. 457 OF 201.IN THE MATTER OF: Indiabulls Financial Services Limited Petitioner/ Amalgamating Company

Vijay Gupta Vs. M/S. Paper Merchants Association and Others

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, Bangalore Vs. Kannada Grahakara Ko ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : MRTP

The 8th Respondent By Holding That There Is A Prima Faice Case Against The Petitioner For Violating The Competition Act, 2002.) 1. The subject matter of challenge in this petition is a direction dated 18.10.2012 issued under S.26(1) of … any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in sub- section (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its own motion or on- (a) receipt of any information, in such manner and accompanied by