Advanced Search Results

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : 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 … This, in turn, implied that CCI would have no jurisdiction to determine those issues as by virtue of Section 61 of the Competition Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was ousted in respect of matters falling within the … 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:

Ramakant Kini Vs. Hiranandani Hospital

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

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, … equality before law, and equal protection of law is violated. Counsel submitted that the bar to jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Act underscores the fact that the task performed by CCI is essentially judicial, ordinarily performed by

Koninklijke Philips Electronics n.v. Vs.rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

issue cannot be decided in the present suit as the same is barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002 which specifically provides that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect

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 … in nature. Challenge can only be in respect of grounds as provided in 44 Section 30 (2) or Section 61 (3) of the IBC2016 which is limited to matters “other than” the enquiry into the autonomy or commercial

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 … has not been approved or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority; (ii) where an appeal has been preferred under section 61 or section 62 or such an appeal is not time barred under any provision of law for the

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 27 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002. 24Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 12 legislature wishes those disputes arising from such new legislation not

Espn Star Sports Vs. Global Broadcast News Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsMedia and Communication

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13, 14, 18, 19, 30, 37, 37(3), 39, 39A, 51, 52, 52B, 53, 55, 58, 61, 61(1), 61(2), 64, 65 and 66; Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 1, Rule 9; Constitution of India - Article 19(1)

Reported in : LC2008(3)257; 2008(38)PTC477(Del)

news channel and such programme is also liberally interspersed with commercials. This would also amount to a direct competition with ESS since ESS also comes out with sporting news. c. He submitted that while fair dealing cannot … C. A. on the ground that the license Agreement dated July 26, 2002 produced in Court redacted crucial sections of the Agreement, particularly, those dealing … of the suit. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the entire suit of the appellant/plaintiff for non-compliance of Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. After the arguments were heard in

Gajendra Haldea S/O Late Shri Rao Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL203

preamble of the Act enshrines the concept of competition to give impetus to development of electricity industry. Similarly Section 61(1) envisages framing of Regulations by the Appropriate Commission which would encourage competition, efficiency, good performance and optimum investments.52. … been estimated that need based capacity addition of more than 1,00,000 MW would be required during the period 2002-12. 5.2.2 The Government of India has initiated several reform measures to create a favourable environment for addition of

Espn Stars Sports Vs. Global Broadcast News Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Media and Communication

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 1, Rule 9 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 16, 18, 19, 19A, 30, 30A, 37, 37(3), 39, 39A, 52, 53, 55, 58, 61, 61(1), 64, 65 and 66

Reported in : LC2008(2)75; 2008(36)PTC492(Del)

the defense of fair dealing depends on three factors: (1) whether the alleged fair dealing is in commercial competition with the owner's exploitation of work/instance of the owner of the copyright copyright; (2) whether the work/ performance … avers that it entered into an exclusive license Agreement dated 26th July 2002 (valid for the period 1st May 2002 to 30th April, 2008) with … telecast before, during and after the use of cricket match footage. These actions, it is claimed violate the Plaintiff's broadcast reproduction rights.8. The Plaintiffs claim … the need to implead the owner of the Copyright in this case, (i.e the ACB), in terms of Section 61(1), thereforee, were inapplicable.16. Learned Counsel relied upon the Broadcast Code published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and