Advanced Search Results

Girish Chandra Gupta and ors. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 12B, 10, 36B; Competition Act, 2002 - Section 66(1)

Trade Practices Commission (for short 'the MRTP Commission') constituted under the MRTP Act. By Section 66(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, the MRTP Act was repealed and the MRTP Commission was dissolved. Section 66(3) of the Competition Act, 2002

All India Tyre Dealers’ Federation Vs. Tyre Manufacturers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

In Re: Alleged Cartelization by Steel Producers

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

interglobe Aviation Limited Vs the Secretary Competition Commission of ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade

Acts : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - sections 11(1), 33(1)(d),66 ; Competition Act, 2002 (`CA'). - sections 26(1),66(1), 66(3), 66(4), 66(5)

order dated 16th June 2010 passed by the Competition Commission of India (`CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (`CA').2. The background to the present petitions is that by an order dated 13 th February 2009, the … March 2010 the RTPE Case No. 5 of 2009 was transferred by the DG(I&R;) to the CCI under Section 66(6) of the CA. Thereafter on 10th June 2010 the CCI passed the impugned order under Section 26(1) of

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

Vicnivaas Agency Vs. Mmtc Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., the MRTP Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, they do not have a right to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal in terms … Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy.3. Section 66 of the Competition Act, which came into force on 1.9.2009, to the extent it is relevant for these

Cross Land Marketing (2000) Pte. Ltd. Vs. the Food Corporation of Indi ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., the MRTP Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, they do not have a right to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal in terms … Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy.3. Section 66 of the Competition Act, which came into force on 1.9.2009, to the extent it is relevant for these

G.K. Granites Vs. Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Limite

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., the MRTP Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, they do not have a right to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal in terms … Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy.3. Section 66 of the Competition Act, which came into force on 1.9.2009, to the extent it is relevant for these

Apoorva Agencies Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., the MRTP Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, they do not have a right to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal in terms … Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy.3. Section 66 of the Competition Act, which came into force on 1.9.2009, to the extent it is relevant for these

Vicnivaas Agency Vs. Food Corporation of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., the MRTP Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, they do not have a right to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal in terms … Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy.3. Section 66 of the Competition Act, which came into force on 1.9.2009, to the extent it is relevant for these