Advanced Search Results
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...
Delhi
Mar-30-2016
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 … any civil consequences in light of the strict confidentiality required to be maintained by CCI in terms of Section 57 of the Competition Act and Regulation 35 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009. 37. Mr. … 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:
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskPremier Rubber Mills vs.union of India & Ors.
Delhi
Apr-11-2017
MRTP
on record, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed an order dated 06.11.2013 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 recording a prima facie opinion that the acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties (OP) mentioned therein is … 36 mandates that CCI shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. The further contention is that Section 57 of the Act mandates that information relating to any enterprise shall not disclosed without the previous permission in
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSomi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. Vs.union of India & Ors.
Delhi
Apr-11-2017
MRTP
on record, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed an order dated 06.11.2013 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 recording a prima facie opinion that the acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties (OP) mentioned therein is … 36 mandates that CCI shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. The further contention is that Section 57 of the Act mandates that information relating to any enterprise shall not disclosed without the previous permission in
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
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.- The Court may at any stage of … 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
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRajasthan 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 … the effect of eliminating or reducing competition for bids or adversely affecting or manipulating the process for bidding.” 5775) The necessary ingredients of bid rigging, thus, are: (a) agreement between the parties; (b) these parties are engaged
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRamakant Kini Vs. Hiranandani Hospital
Competition Commission of India CCI
Feb-05-2014
MRTP
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskDhanraj Pillay Vs. Hockey India
Competition Commission of India CCI
Feb-28-2013
Education
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt Ltd vs M/S Mbl Infrastructure ...
Delhi
May-04-2026
Arbitration
that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002, the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to … filed by the Respondent before IRP was partially approved by the IRP to the tune of Rs.1 ,87, 57,863 / -. It is stated that a List of creditors (Ex. RW-1/13, Pg.466-478, RV-III) was prepared wherein the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAll India Tyre Dealersâ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers
Competition Commission of India CCI
Oct-30-2012
MRTP
Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI
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 … then, relied upon the decisions of the Australian High Court in James v. Commonwealth of Australia (1936) A.C. 578 and Commonwealth of Australia and others v. Bank of New South Wales and others [1950]. A.C. 235 to
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 »