Advanced Search Results

Act1: competition act 2002 section 65 · Page 1 of about 828 results (0.050 seconds)

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

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: … also been summoned to record their statement on oath before the DG. 65. The submission made on behalf of Ericsson that impugned orders were being

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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 … or a wink’…. Unless persons declare this agreement or understanding, there is rarely direct evidence of action in 65 concert, and the Panel must draw on its experience and common sense to determine whether those involved in

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 19 2014

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

Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal

Decided on : May-19-2014

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 … the definition of 'service' in section 2(u) of the Act by the DG. The DG also referred to section 65(105)(zzzzu) of Finance Act 1994, by which such service was included for the purposes of service tax. In that

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Try free for 7 days How AI Brief works

Aug 09 2012

Sajjan Khaitan Proprietor Vs. Eastern India Motion Picture Association ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Aug-09-2012

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 19 2014

M/S R S Industries Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-19-2014

Subject : MRTP

RSI and `13,65,000/- in case of Rajkumar Dyeing. The said penalties were imposed under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘Act’) for failure on part of the petitioners to comply with the direction to file an

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 19 2014