Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: competition act 2002 section 63 · Page 1 of about 788 results (0.092 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jan 20 2005

Brahm Dutt Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-20-2005

Subject : MRTP Constitution

Acts : Competition Act, 2000; Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 1(3), 7, 8, 8(2), 9 and 63(2); Competition Commission of India (Selection of Chairperson and Other Members of the Commission) Rules, 2003 - Rules 3 and 4(3)

Reported in : AIR2005SC730; (2005)3CompLJ358(SC); [2005(2)JCR59(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC421; (2005)2SCC431; [2005]57SCL429(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC895

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The Competition Act, 2002 received assent of the President of India on 13.1.2003 and was published in the Gazette of India dated … laws and there is a need to shift the country's focus from curbing the monopolies to promoting competition. Section 1(3) of the Act provides that the Act shall come into force on such date as the Central … the Act. 2. In exercise of the Rule making power under Section 63(2)(a) read with Section 9 of the Act, the Central Government made 'The

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 22 2006

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

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Dec-22-2006

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL203

of electricity in the same area by two or more distribution licensees, the Appropriate Commission may, for promoting competition among distribution licensees, fix only maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Commission … and wheeling charges with surcharge is envisaged to be regulated (see Section 42(4) of the Act). As per Section 63 of the Act where tariff has been determined through transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines … 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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 30 2016

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-30-2016

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 … 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: … retain any book and paper produced for a period of six months. 63. Section 240A empowers an Inspector to apply for an order of seizure

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Oct 01 2018

Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Limited Vs. u.o.i and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-01-2018

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 … that tender. In the investigation report in the said case, the Director General had noted that out of 63 bidders who participated in the tender, 50 bidders were qualified for opening of price bids, while 12 bidders

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 05 2014

Ramakant Kini Vs. Hiranandani Hospital

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Feb-05-2014

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 23 2014

Nabha Power Limited and Another Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction

Decided on : Apr-23-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

in the present case the project has been developed under Section 63 of the Act through tariff based competition bidding Case 2 (with pre-identified site) in accordance with the Standard Bidding Guidelines issued by the Central Government. … Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 contains a map of India showing Seismic Zones. The map shows Patiala … tariff adjustment and extension of time in respect of the 2x700 MW Rajpura Thermal Power Project developed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pursuant to a competitive bidding process. 2. The brief facts of the case

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 30 2012

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Oct-30-2012

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 12 2018

Cadila Healthcare Limited and Anr vs.competition Commission of India a ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-12-2018

Subject : MRTP

The applications filed by Cadila sought recall of the CCI’s order dated 17.11.2015 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act” hereafter). Those directions regard were that ―in the course of investigation, if involvement of any other … and order dated 09.03.2018 of a learned Single Judge of this court. The LPA No.160/2018 Page 1 of 63 impugned judgment upheld the orders dated 16.01.2018 and 17.01.2018 passed by the first Respondent i.e. Competition Commission of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 10 2019

Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-10-2019

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 … India and Ors. 2018 (252) DLT647. W.P.(C) 11467/2018 & connected matters Page 63 of 152 85. In view of the above discussion, it is held

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 28 2017

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-28-2017

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 … injunction CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 1 of 96 under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been made, by application (IA24062016), resulting in some … Cotton Hybrid Seeds being CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 44 of 96 Rs. 635 per packet, it in entirety representing the seed value with zero trait

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial