Advanced Search Results
Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Limited Vs. u.o.i and Anr
Supreme Court of India
Oct-01-2018
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 … absence of any control by any cartel.50) As regards the second and third requirement of bid rigging, i.e., 40 adversely effecting or manipulating the bidding process, he argued that the submission of bids by the appellant (even
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskWalmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission
Delhi
Sep-04-2018
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
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAll India Tyre Dealersâ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers
Competition Commission of India CCI
Oct-30-2012
MRTP
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.
Delhi
Apr-10-2019
MRTP
all these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter “the Act”). The specific challenge is to provisions of Sections 22(3), 27(b), 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 53E, … challenge various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter “the Act”). The specific challenge is to provisions of Sections 22(3), 27(b), 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F and 61 (“the impugned provisions” hereafter) of the Act and … to issue regulations through an adversary W.P.(C) 11467/2018 & connected matters Page 40 of 152 proceeding‖. The same definition has been reiterated in Wharton‘s Law
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskConsim Info Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd.
Chennai
Sep-30-2010
Intellectual Property
monopoly over keywords, which is anti competitive and hence would become a restrictive trade practice, disallowed by the Competition Act, 2002.29. From the rival contentions briefly presented above, it is seen that fortunately, there are not many serious … the trademarks in question in favour of the plaintiff by the Trademark Registry is contrary to law under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. There is also no concept, according to the fourth defendant, of … adult oriented banner advertisements and that since they were actually using about 400 words, besides the trademarks of the plaintiff, there was nothing indispensable about
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: Alleged Cartelization by Steel Producers
Competition Commission of India CCI
Jan-09-2014
MRTP
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMonsanto Technology Llc and Ors. Vs.nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.
Delhi
Mar-28-2017
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 … subcellular organelle or compartment.‖ localized [claim nos.2 to 7 and 10 to 40 following the above being directed to a plant comprising the said nucleic … injunction CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 1 of 96 under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been made, by application (IA24062016), resulting in some
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCoal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India
Supreme Court of India
Jun-15-2023
Land Acquisition
the second appellant, Western Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary company of the first appellant cannot be bound by the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). In other words, having regard to the very object and purpose for … the object of the amendment made in the EPF Act by Act 40 of 1973 was to treat the dues payable by the employer as … does not deal with a company like the appellant. In other words, while there may be indication in Section 19(4)(g) of the Act that the fact that a body is a monopoly under the statute may indicate
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and O ...
Competition Appellate Tribunal
May-19-2014
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 … provided, which was not a requirement of law. On all these grounds the DG's report was objected on. 40. The DG's report was also objected to by the DTCP, who maintained that all the permissions to the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskForum For Peoples Collective Efforts (fpce) Vs. The State Of West Beng ...
Supreme Court of India
May-04-2021
Land Acquisition
situation, suo-motu reference to the Regulatory the authority has power to make Competition Commission of Authority suo-motu reference to the India. Competition Commission of India … issued under which the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) were applied to certain non-banking financial institutions, including the respondent. The respondent issued a notice under … is no such provision. Compounding of compounding of offences under Offences the Act. 8 Section 71(1): provides that Section 40(3): Factors Factors for Regulatory Authority shall stated in WB-HIRA for adjudging quantum appoint an adjudicating officer adjudging the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »