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 … OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6364 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6369 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6370 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.10579 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.1724 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5277-5278 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5281-5315 OF2016AND CIVIL APPEAL No.7359 OF2016JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.4 All these appeals are filed against
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association Vs. Nbcc (i ...
Supreme Court of India
Mar-24-2021
Land Acquisition
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 Commission of India under that … a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security in the manner set out in section 52; (c) wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of twelve months
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 … the Appellant amounted to service. The CCI also relied on the definition of section 2(u) of the Act. 52. It is to be seen that in the definition of service under the Act, if the service is
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Airports 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 … the economic policy of the country. 50 See Brahm Dutt v. Union of India, AIR2005SC73051 (2010) 10 SCC744[106]. 52 “2009 Regulation” 53 The Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009; Regulation 25(1) Page 26 of 53 PART
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNamrata Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ot ...
Allahabad
Dec-04-2013
Land Acquisition
General, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi under Section 41 (2) read with Section 36 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the œCompetition Act?), and further a direction has been sought for upon the Competition Commission of … of the State Legislature as the said amendment entrenches in the legislative field of the Parliament under Entry 52, List-I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It was also contended that the sugar having been declared controlled
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskThe State Of Gujarat And Anr. Vs. M/s. Saw Pipes Ltd. (known As Jindal ...
Supreme Court of India
Apr-17-2023
Land Acquisition
under Section 78(5).6.8 In the case of Competition Commission of India (supra) while considering Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 which provides for a penalty, it is observed in paragraphs 34 to 37 as under: “34. If … penalty is automatic on the eventualities occurring under subsection (5) of Section 45 of the Act, 1969. Page 52 of 646.10 In the recent decision in the case of Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (supra), while
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 & AskJindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
Supreme Court of India
Nov-11-2016
Right to Information
the bench to adopt “Appreciable Adverse Effect on Trade & Commerce [AAETC].” borrowed from section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The difference between enactment of AAETC before and after the impugned Law will provide the impact on Trade … to impose Entry Tax on goods in exercise of specific power available to the State legislature under Entry 52 of List II in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. If the Constitution Bench judgments in Atiabari’s case
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager
Supreme Court of India
Nov-13-2019
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. … 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,
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskChettinad 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 … as it gets minimum annual guaranteed revenue for 30 years of commercial operation or a revenue share of 52.33% of the gross revenue, whichever is higher and therefore, higher gross revenue of the petitioner means higher revenue
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 »