Advanced Search Results

Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

any W.P.(C) 3044/2016 Page 7 of 27 information, and as an illustration, reference to Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which

Rci Power Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Electricity

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 - Sections 11, 11(1), 12, 12(3), 15(4), 26, 26(5), 54(2), 56(2) and 56(3); Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 - Sections 22, 22(1) and 29; Transfer Scheme Rules

Reported in : AIR2004AP60; 2003(3)ALD762

of Reform and Restructure is to create conditions for the sustainable development of its Power Sector through promoting competition, efficiency, transparency and attracting the much needed private finances into the Power Sector. The ultimate goal of the … Swamy, J. 1. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 4770 and 4771 of 2002 are the appellants in CMA Nos. 1351 and 1356 of 2001. These … electricity. The Court held that 'the Board can, in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 49, enter into an agreement with a consumer stipulating for a special tariff for supply of electricity for a … 41 Generating Companies entered into agreements with the Board before the Reforms Act came into force and 20 Generating Companies entered into agreements after the

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

M/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and O ...

Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal

Subject : 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 … the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer." 49. A very interesting argument was raised on this issue that if this legal fiction was brought into on

Competition Commission of India vs.m/s. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of the CCI, stating that GIL had abused its dominant position, in terms of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 („Act‟). 1.3 The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, held that inasmuch as the direction issued

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

India (CCI), which was envisioned to maintain adequate competition in the market and protect consumer welfare. Further, the Competition Act, 2002 was later enacted which provided certain powers of Civil Courts to the CCI for effective enquiry and adjudication.37. … Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable.” 24 (2014) 11 SCC415 49 107. This was relied upon in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of … the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had originally approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 (5- A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act,

Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Limited Vs. u.o.i and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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 … deals with and prohibits those agreements which cause and are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on 49 competition within india. It reads as under: “Section 3 : Anti-competitive agreements:- (1) No enterprise or association of

Monsanto Technology Llc and Ors. Vs.nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : 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 … various agencies concerned, may CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 38 of 96 including 49. fix maximum sale price from time to time of all types of … 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

Oriental Sales Agencies (India) Private Limited vs.ntpc Limited and An ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

any agreement to rig the bids or make collusive bids that fall foul of section 3 of the Competition Act 2002. In the facts of the case it is difficult to accept that having a common representative established that … its bid. Similarly, OSAPL was also asked to provide shareholding pattern of M/s Eamami Agrotech Limited which held 49.99% in the OSAPL. 5.6 The details of shareholding patterns of the companies as sought for by the NTPC