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 … are concerned. Out of these 45 companies one did not challenge the orders before the COMPAT and other 44 had filed appeals which have been decided by the COMPAT.3) The manner in which the inquiry was undertaken
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBayer Corporation Vs. Union of India and ors
Delhi
Nov-05-2014
MRTP
20. Significantly the text of section107A of the Act, as introduced by section 44 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, was materially different from the one proposed under the 1999 Bill. The said section as brought in force … was a prohibit use”. At about the same time (i.e. in September 1984) US enacted “the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984” which was commonlycalled as the Hatch - Waxman Act. The said
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
M/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 … was the Informant. Similarly, Appeal No. 20 of 2012 relates to CCI Case No. 43 of 2010 and 44 of 2010 in which Shri Haravtar Singh and Smt. Gurjit Kaur Arora were the Informants respectively. Appeal No.
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMahindra 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 … DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2018 Pronounced on:10. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 11467/2018, CM APPL. 44376-44378/2018 MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED AND ANR. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR.
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 … summary, we may notice paragraph-4.8.8, it is stated as follows: “4.8.8. Summary 44 1. The State Monopolies, Government procurement and foreign companies should be subject … 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 & AskAirports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India Vs. Delhi Internationa ...
Supreme Court of India
Oct-18-2024
MRTP
in proceedings initiated suo moto by it since it is a dominus litus in such proceedings;49 47 The Competition Act 2002; Section 53S; Also see the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009; Regulation 51 48 (2010) 10 SCC744[104]. 49 … be impleaded as an interested party. 41 (1975) 2 SCC702[25]. 42 (1975) 2 SCC702[28]. 43 (1975) 2 SCC702[29]. 44 (1975) 2 SCC702[40]. Page 23 of 53 PART D29 In Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskTelefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Intex Technologies (India) ...
Delhi
Mar-13-2015
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
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 … I version of Bt. Cotton Hybrid Seeds being CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 44 of 96 Rs. 635 per packet, it in entirety representing the seed … 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 & AskM/S Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited and Others Vs. M/S ...
Competition Commission of India CCI
Apr-15-2014
Land Acquisition
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
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 »