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: "48.

M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by S. Ravi, Director ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Service Tax

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was considering the Constitutional validity of Section 48(5) of the MVAT Act, 2002. Section 48 of the said Act deals with set off, refund, etc., Section 48(5) states that in no case, the … so pleases or chooses, collect the tax from the purchaser and in some cases as a result of competitive conditions the dealer may find it profitable not to do so. 26....The legislative intent underlying the previous provision

Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : 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 … provisions” hereafter) of the Act and the notification dated 31.03.2011 amending Regulation 48 (1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (hereafter “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

Marc Evan Rothman Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

of India on a singular ground, which is, that the process commenced under Section 48 of the Act Competition Act, 2002 (in short the Act) is premature, in view of the fact that the CCI has not returned any

Pran Mehra Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

of India on a singular ground, which is, that the process commenced under Section 48 of the Act Competition Act, 2002 (in short the Act) is premature, in view of the fact that the CCI has not returned any

Albert Yun Quan Liu Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

of India on a singular ground, which is, that the process commenced under Section 48 of the Act Competition Act, 2002 (in short the Act) is premature, in view of the fact that the CCI has not returned any

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Ltd & Anr. Vs.competition ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

the learned Single Judge with respect to the scope, ambit and applicability of Section 48 of the Companies Act, 2002 were never raised before and / or dealt by the Division Bench in Cadila (Supra). It is stated … 14 of 42 contravention of orders of the CCI or DG under Section 42 to 44 of the Competition Act and not for contravention of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act by the Company is misconceived.

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11B(1), 11B(3), 12, 12(1), 13, 13(1), 13(4), 25, 26(1), 43, 47, 48, 53(1), 64, 104A, 105, 106 and 108; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 48; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles Act; Patents Act, 1949; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(8), 26(1), 51 and 53

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

about infringement, they are entitled to be protected by their patents against competition by the defendants until those patents expire. They are struggling to establish … stage of interim application, while considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 of 2002), which has come into effect from 20.05.2003 and Amendment Act 2005, which came into … the patentee was having, an exclusive right to use the patented product, whereas, after the amendment, as per Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, it gives an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent the third parties

Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India Vs. Delhi Internationa ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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