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 … was actuated by any extraneous considerations. They entertained a reasonable suspicion based on the record and other 11 42 surrounding circumstances and only acted in a bona fide manner in taking the stand that the three big
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShri Jose C. Mundadan vs.state & Anr.
Delhi
Mar-29-2019
Land Acquisition
a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the … petitioners on which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Delhi has taken cognizance of the offences allegedly committed under Section 42(3) of the Competition Act and issued process. These petitions preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJose C Mundadan vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Delhi
Mar-29-2019
Land Acquisition
a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the … petitioners on which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Delhi has taken cognizance of the offences allegedly committed under Section 42(3) of the Competition Act and issued process. These petitions preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
M/S Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd vs.competition Commission ...
Delhi
Mar-29-2019
Land Acquisition
a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the … petitioners on which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Delhi has taken cognizance of the offences allegedly committed under Section 42(3) of the Competition Act and issued process. These petitions preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S R S Industries Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S R S Industries Vs. Competition Commission of India and anr.
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskChettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...
Chennai
Mar-29-2016
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 … 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 order, as regards
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works Private Limited and Vs. Competition ...
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S R S Industries Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works Private Limited and Vs. Competition ...
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an
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 »