Advanced Search Results

M/S Stelling Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (railyatri.in) and Anr. Vs.indian ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

impose restrictions on its business model. Further any such restriction would be contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002.63. In conclusion he would state that the present matter does not involve any disputed questions of fact … misconceived inasmuch as IRCTC has no right to refuse supply of tickets except in circumstances as prescribed under Section 56 of the Railway Act, and in terms of Section 50 of the Railway Act, IRCTC is obligated to

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 … Power Plants and non-conventional energy developers) 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 Act came into force. The payment … the year 1910 regulating the supply and use of electrical energy.18. Under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to issue licence … the provisions of the Fifth Schedule.74. Under Section 56(3) of the Reforms Act, upon establishment of the

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 … shift upon such enterprises or persons etc. to rebut the said presumption by leading adequate evidence. In case 56 such an evidence is led, which dispels the presumption, then the CCI shall take into consideration the factors

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

party would not become a necessary party merely because she has an interest in the correct solution of 56 The Competition Act, 2002; Section 19(1) 57 Order 1 Rule 10(2): “Court may strike out or add parties.- … 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Kumar Giri

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)103TTJ(Chennai)352

to each of the assessees was for the purpose of avoiding immediate competition, the same was in the nature of non-compete fees. It clearly shows … clauses are outside the purview of the non-compete agreement entered by the assessee.11. The amendment in the Finance Act, 2002 proves that the above clauses are not applicable to the assessee's case and Section 28(va) is applicable with … In this regard we find that apex Court in CIT v.D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. held that Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

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

Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Vs. Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professio ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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

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 … by members of the government. It was argued that Sections 55 and 56 show that CCI inherently lacks independence. These provisions are so sweeping in

Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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 … of Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads and Inland Waterways) Act, 1954, which squarely comes under Entry 56 of List II fell for consideration. It was assailed as violating Article 301, and as not saved by

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI