Advanced Search Results

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Intex Technologies (India) ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

claimed that the plaintiff is one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world. The Ericsson group is active in more than 180 countries having annual sales of USD35Billion (approximately) for the year 2013. The Ericsson’s main … plaintiff has filed the interim application being I.A. No.6735/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned application.3. The facts stated in the plaint

Premier Rubber Mills vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

for the time being in force." this Act, shall, without 12. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 64 of the Competition Act, 2002, the CCI made the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (for short … 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

Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. Vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

for the time being in force." this Act, shall, without 12. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 64 of the Competition Act, 2002, the CCI made the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (for short … 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

Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

any W.P.(C) 3044/2016 Page 7 of 27 information, and as an illustration, reference to Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which

M/S. Vikash Trading Company, Represented by Its Proprietor, C.S. Bohar ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

cannot render the Final Findings, without referring the matter to the Competition Commission, under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. The issuance of the Disclosure Statement, by … that the Supreme Court, in syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan, (1964) 5 SCR 64, had held, inter alia, that findings of fact reached by the inferior … Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, read with Section 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and to quash the same in respect of goods

Sangram Singh S/O Suresh Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 15(1) and 15(4)

Reported in : 2004(4)MhLj940

admission. After about three dacades, it issued a Resolution on 31st January, 2002 providing for 20 per cent seats for the hilly region of the … of the State Government to establish a Government Medical College at Kolhapur is contrary to the provisions of Section 64 of the Act and against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhananjay (supra),(b) … college for the hilly area residents of the concerned region grossly violates the well recognized doctrine of providing competitive opportunities for admissions to professional courses all over the State and the region.16. In the case of Indian

Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

made recommendations and submitted its report on 22nd of May, 2002. After completion of the consultation process, the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the `Act') as Act 12 of 2003, dated 12th December, 2003, was enacted. As per the … and 4 read with Section 19 of the Act. In exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 64, the Commission has framed Regulations called The Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (for short, the `Regulations').

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 … SMS Holding (P) Ltd. & Ors.13 13 wherein the Court stated and discussed this aspect in the following 64 manner: “54. The standard of proof required to establish such concert is one of probability and may be

Arcelormittal India Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta

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 … th March, 2018 was (a) ‘Crinium Bay’ (‘VTB’) 34.1% (b) ‘Indo’ (c) ‘TPE’ 25.9% : : :40. 17 64. As on 29th March, 2018, as the ‘AEL’ was not the shareholder of ‘Numetal Ltd.’ and all the

Competition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. .

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

(in short, “the Tribunal”) setting aside the order passed by the Competition Commission under section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 (in short, referred to as “the Act”) whereby penalty of Rupees One Crore 2 was imposed on the … India from the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act for a period of 5 years.” 21. Section 64 of the Act confers upon the Commission power to make Regulations. Under section 64(3), the Regulations are to