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 … of judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 59. CCI is a body established under Section 7 of the Competition Act and performs the functions as mandated under Chapter IV of the Competition Act. CCI … 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:

Vedant Bio Sciences Through Advocate D.P.Pandey and Maneesh Dubey Vs. ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

Shri Jose C. Mundadan vs.state & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the

Jose C Mundadan vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the

M/S Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd vs.competition Commission ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a statutory body established by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Competition Act”, for short), the respondent herein, has instituted, through its authorized representative, criminal complaints against the

East Line Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. Borooah Cancer Institute and o ...

Court : Guwahati

Subject : ConstitutionContract

Acts : Competition Act, 2003 - Sections 1 and 54; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 299

amount to abuse of dominant position which will be violative of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The dominant position has been defined under the Competition Act, 2002 as a position of strength enjoyed by … undergoing treatment at the Institute and the Institute desires to provide their medicines at the lowest possible rates; 7. On consideration of the entire tender documents, we find that the tender documents cannot be called to be

Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by JCB India Ltd. (respondent No.1 … markets, in India and for matters connected therewith. CCI has been established by the Central Government under Section 7(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 for the purposes of the said Act. Section 7(2) states that CCI shall

Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by JCB India Ltd. (respondent No.1 … markets, in India and for matters connected therewith. CCI has been established by the Central Government under Section 7(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 for the purposes of the said Act. Section 7(2) states that CCI shall

Competition Commission of India vs.m/s. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of the CCI, stating that GIL had abused its dominant position, in terms of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 („Act‟). 1.3 The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, held that inasmuch as the direction issued … passed on to the customers and thereby violating the provisions of section 4(2)(a) of the Act.” LPA1372014 Page 7 of 38 Impugned order of the CCI11 The investigation report was considered by the CCI on 13th March,

M/S Oracle Drugs and Others Vs. Secretary, Department of Health and Fa ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI