Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: competition act 2002 section 8 · Page 1 of about 2,699 results (0.064 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.

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 … such combinations to be void. 117. Section 7 of the Competition Act provides for establishment of CCI and Section 8 provides for its composition. Section 16 of the Competition Act provides for appointment of Director General for the … 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:

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 23 2012

Union of India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-23-2012

Subject : MRTP

entertain the complaint on the basis of the information of respondent No. 2 under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act). The Commission has rejected the stand of the petitioner that it is not an ‘enterprise’ within … consequently, the proceedings before the Commission could not proceed and were liable to be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This objection too has been rejected by the Commission. 2. Respondent

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 20 2014

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, Bangalore Vs. Kannada Grahakara Ko ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-20-2014

Subject : MRTP

The 8th Respondent By Holding That There Is A Prima Faice Case Against The Petitioner For Violating The Competition Act, 2002.) 1. The subject matter of challenge in this petition is a direction dated 18.10.2012 issued under S.26(1) of … that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 having approached the respondent No.8 - the Competition Commission of India, under Section 19(1) of the Act, to institute an enquiry against the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 7, by

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

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, … validity of the relevant provisions of the Act with particular reference to Rule 3 of the Rules and Section 8 (2) of the Act, after the enactment is amended as sought to be held out by the Union

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 29 2016

Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-29-2016

Subject : MRTP

respondent and quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.) The petitioner operates a coal handling terminal at the third respondent Port, Kamarajar Port Limited. The petitioner was … that the coram of the members of the Commission requires a Judicial member, such plea is incorrect, as Section 8 of the Act does not mandate the presence of the Judicial member in the meetings of the Commission.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 04 2013

Namrata Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ot ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-04-2013

Subject : Land Acquisition

General, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi under Section 41 (2) read with Section 36 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the œCompetition Act?), and further a direction has been sought for upon the Competition Commission of … said Writ Petition No. 47934 of 2008 was amended challenging the vires of the said Amendment Act, 2009. 8. Vide U.P. Act No. 3 of 2009 new sections, being Sections 3-A, 3-B, 3- C, 3-D and 3-E,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 04 2018

Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-04-2018

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 … controversy involved in the present petition is whether the CVC has the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry under Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereafter ‗the CVC Act‘) on the basis of a newspaper report,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 16 2015

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-16-2015

Subject : Right to Information

the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, … fact that information sought by the appellant is sensitive and cannot be disclosed, it could also harm the competitive position of the co-operative bank. Therefore, exemption from disclosure of the Information is available under Section 8(1)(d) of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 02 2016

Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. And Anr. Vs.registrar of Plant Varieties and ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-02-2016

Subject : Education

it affects its business. The only enactment which uses the term “abusive” is Section 4 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002, which employs it while defining what constitutes “abuse of dominant position” by a business or corporate entity, taking … Varieties and Farmers‟ Rights Authority and Registry is established under Section 3; its general functions are outlined in Section 8. Section 11 enacts as follows: “11. Power of Authority.-In all proceedings under this Act before the Authority or

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 10 2013

Vijay Gupta Vs. M/S. Paper Merchants Association and Others

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Jan-10-2013

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Court Competition Commission of India CCI

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