Advanced Search Results
Chettinad 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 … (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 the prima facie
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskInternational Flavors and Fragrances Inc. vs Competition Commission of ...
Delhi
Apr-15-2026
Land Acquisition
petition for deciding the appeal are asunder:- i. The respondent received an information under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Act’Signing Date:21.04.2026 LPA 266/2026 Page 2 of 10for the sake of brevity)
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 … of the Act was not only to eliminate cartelisation but also to promote competition. His submission was that 46 once the findings of the CCI and COMPAT are accepted that there was an agreement, such an agreement
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
International Flavours and Fragrances Inc vs Competition Commission of ...
Delhi
Feb-23-2026
MRTP
in Suo Moto Case No. 02 of 2025 passed under Section 26(1) read with Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”).2. A perusal of the order reveals that the Commission suo moto, in termsof Section 19(1) of … Commission suo moto, in termsof Section 19(1) of the Act, and on the basis of information received under Section 46 of the Act, has passed directions in terms of Section 26(1) of the Act, directing the Director General
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, … CCI. Counsel highlighted that in contrast, opportunity of hearing is provided before imposing penalties in cartel cases under Section 46 of the Act, read with lesser Penalty Regulations, but not under Section 3 of the Act. Hearing on
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 & 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 & 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 … Smt. Gurjit Kaur Arora were the Informants respectively. Appeal No. 29 of 2013 relates to CCI Case No. 46 of 2012 in which Shri Dinesh Trehan was the Informant. 4. The 3rd group consists of Appeal No.
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 … concerned with public 94 See Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1958 SCC OnLine SC23[111]. Page 46 of 53 PART D and economic interests, which are purely non-adjudicatory considerations; e. Section 13(2) by enabling AERA
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 … and for matters connected therewith”. CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 36 of 96 46. The commodity in the nature of “seed” was defined by Section 2(11) … 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 & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »