Advanced Search Results
M/S Consim Info Private Limited and Another Vs. M/S Google Inc., Usa a ...
Competition Commission of India CCI
Mar-26-2014
MRTP
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...
Delhi
Mar-30-2016
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 … copy of such record or document from any office. It is apparent that such powers are extensive. 61. Section 43 of the Competition Act also provides for imposition of penalty upon any person who fails to comply with … 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:
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRajasthan 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 … is taken note of by this Court in Excel Crop Care Limited as well as West Bengal Artists 43 Association. Insofar as instant case is concerned, his submission was that it is a stark and clear-cut case
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Shri 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 … There being no response to such notices, the Commission imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- by order dated 09.02.2017 under Section 43 of the Competition Act. The RCCL sent a reply on 28.04.2017, the Commission issuing a notice of demand
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 … There being no response to such notices, the Commission imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- by order dated 09.02.2017 under Section 43 of the Competition Act. The RCCL sent a reply on 28.04.2017, the Commission issuing a notice of demand
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/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 … There being no response to such notices, the Commission imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- by order dated 09.02.2017 under Section 43 of the Competition Act. The RCCL sent a reply on 28.04.2017, the Commission issuing a notice of demand
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskThe State Of Gujarat And Anr. Vs. M/s. Saw Pipes Ltd. (known As Jindal ...
Supreme Court of India
Apr-17-2023
Land Acquisition
under Section 78(5).6.8 In the case of Competition Commission of India (supra) while considering Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 which provides for a penalty, it is observed in paragraphs 34 to 37 as under: “34. If … have no discretion. 6.6 In the case of Shriram Mutual Fund (supra) while dealing and/or considering similar Page 43 of 64 provision under the SEBI Act, it is observed and held that mens rea is not an
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskVedant Bio Sciences Through Advocate D.P.Pandey and Maneesh Dubey Vs. ...
Competition Commission of India CCI
Sep-05-2012
MRTP
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCompetition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. .
Supreme Court of India
Apr-17-2018
Land Acquisition
(in short, “the Tribunal”) setting aside the order passed by the Competition Commission under section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 (in short, referred to as “the Act”) whereby penalty of Rupees One Crore 2 was imposed on the … section 31(1) of the Act. However, it observed that the same would not affect the action proposed under section 43(A) of the Act for imposition of penalty in separate proceedings. 9. On 10.3.2014, the Commission issued a show
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCadd Systems and Services Private Limited vs.competition Commission of ...
Delhi
Jul-17-2019
MRTP
control in dam projects.4. In March, 2017, Nagrik Chetna Manch, filed an information under Section 19(l)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘the Act’) before CCI alleging cartelization among the petitioner and certain other parties (hereafter ‘the Opposite Parties’), … petitioner) to submit copies of their financial statements by 03.05.2019, failing which they would render themselves liable under Section 43 of the Act. Upon request of one of the Opposite Parties, the final hearing was further adjourned to
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 »