Advanced Search Results

Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Parties Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

WIPL had also referred to Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, which was subsequently amended by the Competition Amendment Act, 2007. The provision, as originally enacted, provided for an inquiry ―on receipt of a complaint‖. This was amended by … praying that the inquiry being conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter ‗CVC‘) in terms of summons dated 29.10.2015 and letters dated 16.11.2015 and 29.03.2016 be set aside. The CVC had initiated an inquiry on the basis

Samir Agrawal Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Parties Samir Agrawal Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Shri Saurabh Tripathy vs.competition Commission of India & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Parties Shri Saurabh Tripathy vs.competition Commission of India & Anr.

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Ltd & Anr. Vs.competition ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Matched in: Parties Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Ltd & Anr. Vs.competition Commission of India & Ors

Sauranshu Sinha and Others Vs. Union of India, Through Its Secretary a ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

filing MA 1674/2011 which was heard on 20.7.2011 when the applicants were directed to move an Application for amendment of the Original Application (in short ‘OA). 6. Further during the pendency of the OA, a number of … has been submitted by Shri Sinha that OA was filed initially in 2007. After four years, the OA was sought to be amended by bringing … The applicants in all these Applications belong to the cadre of Assistants who qualified the Combined Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short ‘CLDCE) held in different years for promotion to the posts of Section Officer. 2. In … at Annexure A4. The grievance of the applicants has been that this action of respondent no.1 has directly affected the prospects and service conditions of … were made accordingly. Vide Office Memorandum No.11/1/2011-CS.I dated 29.6.2011, as at Annexure A-17, by which the respondent

Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

one advisory and regulatory, and the other adjudicatory; and an appellate body following up the adjudicatory body. The Competition Amendment Act, 2007 was passed on a complete misreading of Braham Dutt (supra). The adjudicatory function of the CCI remained unchanged, … 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, 53F and 61 (“the impugned provisions” hereafter) of the Act and … and in this regard, he placed reliance on Regulations 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 of the General Regulations. Learned senior counsel submitted

Rajeev Suri Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

administrative orders or executive instructions without any statutory backing.14. It has been argued before us that formulation or amendment/ modification of a city’s Master Plan is not an administrative but a legislative exercise. Relying on the decisions … quasi legislative or statutory exercise is mandated by law, has different implications, for example under the Environment Protection Act. This aspect would be considered subsequently.10. In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sale … Authority of India and Others,20the dictum in Cynamide India Ltd. was followed. Section 11(4) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, it was … made to the 7th Edition of Craies on Statute Law at pages 297-298 wherein it is observed: “31...The courts therefore (1) will require due proof

Flemingo Duty-free Shop Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vivek S. Bhatt Vs. Union of ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Sections 2, 3, 11, 12, 12A, 12A(1), 22, 22A, 24, 25, 25(2), 28A to 28R and 37; Airports Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2003; Public Premises (Eviction) Act; Aircraft Act, 1934 - Sections 5(2); Aircraft Rules, 1937; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 2; Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947; Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 - Sections 2; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 13, 13(2), 14, 16, 136 and 226

Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR663; (2008)110BOMLR1730

MIAL to pick and choose any party it wishes for unknown and wrong reasons and exclude others from competition for extraneous and irrelevant considerations. This not only permits but also encourages (and has encouraged and resulted in) … Respondent No. 2. According to the petitioners, after the Airports Authority of India Act was amended by the amendment Act of 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12A of the Act on 4-4-2006 an agreement was executed … appears that the Petition was mentioned before the Division Bench on 22-2- 2007. The Division Bench after hearing the counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the … , and lastly, awarding the contract to DFS (Respondent No. 5) on 29.11.2007,without calling for fresh tenders and considering afresh the claims of all others,

In the Matter Of: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Gujarat Vs. Gujarat ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Subject : Electricity

Government of Gujarat amended the Wind Power Policy, 2007. As per this amendment to the Policy the Distribution Licensees were allowed to purchase surplus power … tariff for electricity, wholesale, bulk, grid or retail, as the case may be, in the manner provided in section 29; (b) to determine the tariff payable for the use of the transmission facilities in the manner provided in … Obligation set by the State Commission, the purchase of excess energy shall be at the rate determined through competitive bidding. Admittedly there was no competitive bidding process implemented for procurement of such surplus energy by the Appellant. … of the above communication to the 2nd Respondent. 9 Aggrieved by the act of the Appellant, the 2nd Respondent filed petition before the State Commission