Competition Appellate Tribunal Court March 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jitender Bhargava Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
1. This appeal is filed by one Shri Jitender Bhargava (the Appellant) against the Order passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter called CCI) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act 2002 (the Act) permitting the Combination of two airlines namely Etihad Airways PJSC and Jet Airways (India) Ltd. In their majority order, the CCI have permitted and have expressed in para 57 of the Order that in pursuance of the notice given by these two airlines under Section 2(6) of the Act and after considering the relevant factors mentioned in sub section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the CCI is of the opinion that the proposed combination is not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the CCI accords its approval under provisions of sub section (1) of Section 31 of the Act. In para 58 the CCI has further clarified that this approval should not be construed as immunity in any manner for subsequent proceedings before the CCI for violations of ...
The Air Cargo Agents Association of India Vs. International Air Transp ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
1. This appeal is against the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed on 17.07.2013, whereby the CCI has not entertained the injunction application filed by The Air Cargo Agents Association of India, the appellant herein. In that injunction application, the appellant prayed for an injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from implementing Resolutions Nos. 801 and 851 by which the members of the appellant association were required to adopt a particular accounting system i.e. Cargo Accounts Settlement System (CASS). 2. It is the case argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Mitra, that though such request was made through an information led before the CCI, the CCI did not consider the same in any manner. Therefore, Dr. Mitra contends that another application had to be made for pressing the prayer for an injunction on which, there was a detailed hearing by the CCI from both the parties and after hearing the parties, the CCI came to the conclusion that ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›