Advanced Search Results

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: … imposition of penalty upon any person who fails to comply with the directions issued by the DG under Section 41(2) of the Competition Act. Any person subjected to an investigation would also have to endure the attendant inconvenience

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 … identical bids by the appellants as it could not be, ipso facto, inferance of bid rigging. Such 10 41 identical prices could be for various reasons and he shared that the reasons given by Ms. Divan predicated

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

Court : Chennai

Subject : MRTP

respondent and quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.) The petitioner operates a coal handling terminal at the third respondent Port, Kamarajar Port Limited. The petitioner was … to the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, and in particular, Regulation Nos.16, 18, 20, 21, 35, 41(1), 41(2), 41(5), 42, 45 and 46. The learned counsel referred to paragraphs 24 to 27 of the impugned

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

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 … bar the institution of a suit such as the present one.54. As regards the arguments purportedly based on Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it must be noted that it only deals with injunctions. The present

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 … have also been mentioned.6. On 18.12.2015, the respondent No.3 issued a notice under Section 36(2) read with Section 41(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner No.1 to submit its reply and clarification in respect of 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 … have also been mentioned.6. On 18.12.2015, the respondent No.3 issued a notice under Section 36(2) read with Section 41(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner No.1 to submit its reply and clarification in respect of the

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

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

Nagole Auto Drivers Welfare Association Represented by President, K. S ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI