Advanced Search Results

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : 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 … undertaking an adjudicatory function in determining tariff under Section 13(1)(a) of the AERA Act. We have already in 59 See Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC52414); Also see karthuri v. Uyyamperumal

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 … OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.7102 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6868 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.7214 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6025 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6365 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5993-5994 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.5774 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.5775 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.5776 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5832-5833 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.5777 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL

Ramakant Kini Vs. Hiranandani Hospital

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

M.k. Rajagopalan Vs. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder

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 … Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) .................... 26 Disapproval of the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) .............................................. 40 Proceedings in this Court ................................................................................ 59 The events during pendency of these appeals...................................................... 62 Rival submissions ............................................................................................ 65 1 Points for determination .................................................................................. 84

Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association Vs. Nbcc (i ...

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 … off the amount paid to JAL, the amount to be refunded by JAL is a sum of Rs. 594 Crores as on 31.12.2019. It is an admitted fact that mobilisation advance of Rs. 586 Crores is due

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Monsanto Technology Llc and Ors. Vs.nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

without prejudice to termination notice. CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 50 of 96 65. The Parliament had enacted the Competition Act, 2002, some of the provisions of which came into force on 31.3.2003, its objective being to provide, keeping in … provisions of the said law referring to Section 3(f), 3(h) and (j), Section 8, Section 10 (4) and Section 59 (1), submitting that impugned acts on the part of defendants are protected by the provisions of the Protection

M/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and O ...

Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal

Subject : 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 … a High Court judgment in Kingfisher's case. It will therefore, be our task to examine the Kingfisher judgment. 59. The factual scenario in the aforesaid judgment was quite different than the present matter before us. In the

Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulator ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Counsel have also argued, based on Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 27(d) of the Competition Act, 2002, that no power is given by the TRAI Act for interference with licence conditions, which amount to a … may, in the opinion of the Tribunal be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.” 59. The said Section is now contained in Section 242(2)(e) of the Companies Act, 2013. “242. Powers of the

Colgate-palmolive (India) Limited Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pr ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Media and CommunicationCivil

Acts : Consumer Protection Act, 1987; Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 36A, 36(1) and 55; Lanham Act; Federal Trade Commission Act - Sections 5(1), 12, 15 and 15(1); Broadcasting Act, 1981; Cable Broadcasting Act, 1984; European Communities Act; Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use)Act, 1950; Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986; Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994; Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Prize Competition Act, 1955; Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; Cigarettes and other Tobacco Product

Reported in : (2008)7MLJ1119; 2009(40)PTC653(Mad)

unfair trade practice.55. However, The MRTP Act, 1969 is sought to be repealed by Section 66 of The Competition Act, 2002 ( Section 66 does not appear to have been notified so far). But fortunately, the power to enquire … Ltd and Ors. v. International General Electric Co. of New York Ltd and Anr. 1975 (2) ALL ER 599, wherein the Chancery Division followed the ratio in Evans v. Harlow and White v. Mellin. In that case