Advanced Search Results

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India a ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Competition

Acts : Competition Act, 2002 - Section 19 read with Section 26(1)

applications were rejected by the CCI by an order dated 17 th March 2011. The CCI noted the amendment to Regulation 20 (2) of the CCI Regulations 2009 with effect from 20th October 2010. The CCI held … an order dated 17 th March 2011 and a consequential order dated 25th March 2011 passed by the Competition Commission of India („CCI), Respondent No. 1, in Case No. 11 of 2009. 3. The facts in brief … provisions of Section 19 read with Section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 („CA') by providing information to the CCI alleging that the Petitioner

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)

has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009, stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the … writ petitions challenge an 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

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

31st March, 2003. The Competition Act has been subsequently amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 and the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009. 114. The Preamble of the Competition Act reads as under:- "An Act to provide, keeping in view of … a patentee insofar as grant of patent license is concerned, is not an 'enterprise' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. (b) That the patentee insofar as licensing of patent is concerned, is not engaged in

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009]., stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the … for MMTC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court filed separate applications under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the „MRTP Act‟), seeking … Reserved on:19. 11.2013 Date of Decision:21. 11.2013 % + WP(C) No.8698 of 2011 G.K. GRANITES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus TATA HITACHI

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009]., stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the … for MMTC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court filed separate applications under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the „MRTP Act‟), seeking … Reserved on:19. 11.2013 Date of Decision:21. 11.2013 % + WP(C) No.8698 of 2011 G.K. GRANITES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus TATA HITACHI

Apoorva Agencies Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009]., stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the … for MMTC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court filed separate applications under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the „MRTP Act‟), seeking … Reserved on:19. 11.2013 Date of Decision:21. 11.2013 % + WP(C) No.8698 of 2011 G.K. GRANITES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus TATA HITACHI

Vicnivaas Agency Vs. Food Corporation of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009]., stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the … for MMTC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court filed separate applications under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the „MRTP Act‟), seeking … Reserved on:19. 11.2013 Date of Decision:21. 11.2013 % + WP(C) No.8698 of 2011 G.K. GRANITES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus TATA HITACHI

Vicnivaas Agency Vs. Mmtc Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

has also been alleged), before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, [on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009]., stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the … for MMTC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court filed separate applications under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the „MRTP Act‟), seeking … Reserved on:19. 11.2013 Date of Decision:21. 11.2013 % + WP(C) No.8698 of 2011 G.K. GRANITES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus TATA HITACHI

Nandu Ahuja and Others Vs. Competition Commission of India and Another

Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal

Subject : MRTP

an issue that a notice could not be issued to the respondents under the provisions prior to the amendment of the Competition Act, which came only on 20th May, 2009. Similarly, FTPGI also filed its reply, on … Ahuja being Appeal No. 11 of 2011 and Ms. Jyoti Deshpande being Appeal No. 13 of 2011. The Competition Commission of India (for short the "CCI") by its impugned order dated 25.05.2011 have held that few parties … business of cinema production and / or distribution had been guilty under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 (in short the "Act") in as … filed by one Shri Sunil Arjan Lulla being Appeal No. 12 of 2011; Shri Nandu Ahuja being Appeal No. 11 of 2011 and Ms. Jyoti

Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Higher and T ...

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Subject : Education

affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment) Regulation, 2009. The learned counsel submitted that, as per Sub Clause 34 of Section 2 of Maharashtra Universities Act teacher includes Director of Physical Education. 12. As per Government Resolution dated 12th August, … petitioner has also qualified the fitness test conducted by U.G.C. The petitioner has participated in national level volleyball competition, wherein he was conferred with Silver medal. Similarly, he had participated in Ashwamegh Inter University Volleyball tournament, wherein