Advanced Search Results
Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board Vs. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. .
Supreme Court of India
Feb-18-2019
Environment
Commission of India, Civil Appeal No.5029/2018 [decided on 18.05.2018]., this Court, while dealing with Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002 held: “7. The aforesaid provision, thus, confers a right upon any of the aggrieved parties mentioned therein to
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskUnion of India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others
Delhi
Feb-23-2012
MRTP
entertain the complaint on the basis of the information of respondent No. 2 under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act). The Commission has rejected the stand of the petitioner that it is not an ‘enterprise’ within … 11. He further submits that the decision of the Commission is appealable before the Competition Appellate Tribunal under Section 53B of the Act. He also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submission that in
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIntel Technology India Pvt Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India
Karnataka
Aug-23-2022
Land Acquisition
by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter ‘Commission’) whereby in exercise of powers under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘2002 Act’) an investigation as to whether their warranty policy has (i) potentially resulted in denial of … a final decision. The respondents were also stated to have the alternative efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 53B of the Competition Act whereby it could approach the appellate tribunal aggrieved by any decision or direction or
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Samir Agrawal Vs. Competition Commission Of India
Supreme Court of India
Dec-15-2020
MRTP
[“the Information”]., sought that the Competition Commission of India [“CCI”]. initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 [“the Act”]., into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [“Ola”]., and Uber India Systems Pvt. … he could not be said to be a “person, aggrieved” for the purposes of filing an appeal under section 53B under the Act, and referred to the judgment in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S. B. Himmatlal Agrawal Partner Vs. Competent Commission of India
Supreme Court of India
May-18-2018
MRTP
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CCI’) asking to show cause under Section 19(1)(a) read with Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). In the said notice, it was alleged that the appellant firm was … the facts narrated above, it is apparent that order of the CCI was challenged by filing appeal under Section 53B of the Act. Along with this appeal, the appellant had also filed application for stay of the operation
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, … 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
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works Private Limited and Vs. Competition ...
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an … receipt of the order. 3.4 The petitioners and others bidders filed appeals against CCI’s order of 06.08.2013, under Section 53B of the Act before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘COMPAT’). By a common order dated 22.04.2014, COMPAT allowed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works Private Limited and Vs. Competition ...
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an … receipt of the order. 3.4 The petitioners and others bidders filed appeals against CCI’s order of 06.08.2013, under Section 53B of the Act before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘COMPAT’). By a common order dated 22.04.2014, COMPAT allowed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S R S Industries Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an … receipt of the order. 3.4 The petitioners and others bidders filed appeals against CCI’s order of 06.08.2013, under Section 53B of the Act before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘COMPAT’). By a common order dated 22.04.2014, COMPAT allowed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S R S Industries Vs. Competition Commission of India and anr.
Delhi
Nov-19-2014
MRTP
RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an … receipt of the order. 3.4 The petitioners and others bidders filed appeals against CCI’s order of 06.08.2013, under Section 53B of the Act before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘COMPAT’). By a common order dated 22.04.2014, COMPAT allowed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »