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 … within India. Section 4 of the Competition Act prohibits any enterprise or group from abusing its dominant position. Section 5 of the Competition Act outlines the scope of a 'combination' and Section 6 of the Competition Act prohibits … 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:

M/S. Muthoot Finance Limited, vs Competition Commission of India,

Court : Kerala

the extent to which it finds that there is a prima facie violation of Section 45 of the Competition Act, 2002.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is apublicly listed company … OF INDIA,C/O IL & FS TRUST COMPANY LIMITED, IL & FS FINANCE CENTRE, PLOT NO. C-22, G BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400051. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MS. DEEPA RATH. 4 IDBI

Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : 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 … during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commission and to impose a transparency obligation on the petitioner. 5. (i) The gist of the information furnished by the second respondent to the Commission was that its members

Kalpraj Dharamshi Successful Resolution Applicant Vs. Kotak Investment ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as re­ ferred to in Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that

Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition 18 Commission of India under

Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by JCB India Ltd. (respondent No.1 … the Act and only the order passed by the CCI under Section 26(2) is made appealable under Section 53-A. It was made clear in CCI v. SAIL (supra) that the directions passed by CCI in exercise of

Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by JCB India Ltd. (respondent No.1 … the Act and only the order passed by the CCI under Section 26(2) is made appealable under Section 53-A. It was made clear in CCI v. SAIL (supra) that the directions passed by CCI in exercise of

Indiabulls Financial Services Limited and anr. Vs. ------------------- ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

the Petitioner Companies may be asked to give an undertaking for necessary compliance of the Provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 with regard to the proposed Scheme.13. The Petitioner Companies in response to the Representation Affidavit dated 21 November … CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This second motion Petition has been filed under Section 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) by the Petitioner Companies seeking sanction and approval of … Scheme by the Honble Court. The learned Regional Director has in Para 5.1 and 6.1 of the Representation Affidavit dated 21 November 2012 submitted that

Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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 … Central Government was to become the lessee of the State Government when vesting took place under Section 3. Section 5 read as follows: “5. Power of Central Government to direct vesting of rights in a Government company.- 34

Dish Tv India Limited Vs. Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited and Others

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI