Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 325 (2.96 seconds)
Documents citing Antitrust - Section 27 Disclaimer: The ... vs Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Ors. ... on 25 August, 2014

Amarjeet Singh Chawla And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 July, 2022

-2988466 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 31.10.2021 2434/2018 AMARJOT SINGH JOURA DARSHAN KAUR JOURA- NOT AND ORS. 01.11.2016 TO 2988719 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 31.10.2021 2435/2018 SUNIL GANDHI 01.11.2016 TO NOT 14 SUNIL GANDHI -465967 VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 2436/2018 PRADEEP ARORA PRADEEP ARORA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 15 VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 963679 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 2438/2018 GUANAAMUTHU PAUL GNANAMUTHU PAUL NOT 16 LAMECH AND ANR. LAMECH 01.11.2016 TO APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR -1232720 31.10.2021 2438/2018 GUANAAMUTHU PAUL ANAND PRADEEP NOT LAMECH AND ANR. 01.11.2016 TO KUMAR-1530354 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Page 74 of 327 Signing Date:11.07.2022 13:53:43 2441/2018 MUKESH KUMAR AND MUKESH KUMAR- NOT 17 ORS. 01.11.2016 TO 2025623 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 31.10.2021 2441/2018 MUKESH KUMAR AND NOT ORS. ARUN KUMAR-2527934 01.11.2016 TO APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 31.10.2021 2491/2018 VISHAL DUTT GOUR VISHAL DUTT GOUR- NOT 18 01.11.2016 TO 2819638 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 2664/2018 ARVIND KAILA AND NOT 19 ANR. ARVIND KAILA-1194741 01.11.2016 TO APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 2664/2018 RAKESH PACHERIA PAWAN KHAITAN- NOT 01.11.2016 TO 2322849 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 2737/2018 RAKESH PACHERIA RAKESH PACHERIA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 20 VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2724698 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 2779/2018 DHRUV ACHTANI DHRUV ACHTANI- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 21 VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2615104 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3030/2018 VANDANA SINGH & ANR VANDANA SINGH- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 22 VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2222827 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3030/2018 VANDANA SINGH & ANR PRANJILA SINGH- 01.11.2016 TO NOT VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2222878 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3074/2018 SUNIL KUMAR KOHLI SUNIL KUMAR KOHLI- NOT 23 AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND 01.11.2016 TO 438721 APPLICABLE ANR. 31.10.2021 3074/2018 SUNIL KUMAR KOHLI NOT AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANJU KOHLI-449053 01.11.2016 TO APPLICABLE ANR. 31.10.2021 3157/2018 GAURAV TINNA AND GAURAV TINNA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 24 ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 1754442 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3277/2018 NEERAJ PANDEY NEERAJ PANDEY- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 25 VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 1135827 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3316/2018 KAMAL DUTTA VS 01.11.2016 TO NOT 26 KAMAL DUTTA-73647 UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3325/2018 RAVI MALHOTRA AND RAVI MALHOTRA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 27 ORS VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 438151 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3325/2018 RAVI MALHOTRA AND SUNITA MALHOTRA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT ORS VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 438192 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3325/2018 RAVI MALHOTRA AND ROWENA MUTTOO- 01.11.2016 TO NOT ORS VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 6574060 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3389/2018 RAJINDER KALRA VS RAJINDER KALRA - 01.11.2016 TO NOT 28 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 1149132 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3449/2018 YASHPAL & ORS VS 01.11.2016 TO NOT 29 YASHPAL-824167 UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3449/2018 YASHPAL & ORS VS 01.11.2016 TO NOT KARAM-824219 UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3449/2018 YASHPAL & ORS VS 01.11.2016 TO NOT SATBIR-1238961 UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Page 75 of 327 Signing Date:11.07.2022 13:53:43 3450/2018 JAGSHRAN JIT SINGH JAGSHRAN JIT SINGH NOT 30 VALAYA VS UNION OF INDIA AND 01.11.2016 TO VALAYA-733829 APPLICABLE ANR. 31.10.2021 3451/2018 VIJAY YADAV & ANR VS 01.11.2016 TO NOT 31 VIJAY YADAV-1566017 UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3452/2018 SHRESTH KALRA VS SHRESTH KALRA - 01.11.2016 TO NOT 32 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 1526148 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3456/2018 SIDDHARTH SHANKAR SIDDHARTH SHANKAR - NOT 33 01.11.2016 TO 3112422 APPLICABLE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 31.10.2021 3527/2018 AVINASH WALIA AND AVINASH WALIA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 34 ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 3432744 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3528/2018 MANAN CHOPRA VS MANAN CHOPRA- 01.11.2016 TO NOT 35 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 1099261 31.10.2021 APPLICABLE 3529/2018 NOT 36 SIDDHANT KACHROO SIDDHANT KACHROO -
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 370 - Cited by 40 - Manmohan - Full Document

Bholey Sharma vs State on 9 October, 2017

30. For the reasons stated above; Jail appeal being no.8574 of 2008 is partly allowed, the conviction of appellant under Section 3(2) v of S.C. & S.T. Act is set aside. The conviction of appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. is maintained but since the appellant has already undergone more than 12 years imprisonment, therefore, the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to sentence already undergone i.e. more than 12 years by him subject to the condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.25,000/- to victim as compensation, in default, to further undergo R.I. for six months. Impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs Hyundai Motor India Limited (36/2014) ... on 14 June, 2017

28. Further, it was argued that order of the Commission in Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel & Ors., Case No. 03 of 2011 cannot be relied upon as the matter is sub judice. It was prayed that any observations made on relevant market or specific conduct based on the above case C. Nos. 36 & 82 of 2014 Page 10 of 44 must not colour the mind of the Commission in the present cases.
Competition Commission of India Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Eco Maritime Ventures Ltd vs Ing Bank Nv on 27 June, 2016

15. The contention that there was no privity of   contract   between   the   appellants   and   the   respondent   and,   therefore,   the   action   in   rem   commenced   against   the   vessel   was   not   well  founded,   has   no   substance.   It   is   conceded   by   the   learned   Counsel   for   the   respondent   that   supply   of   the   bunkers   gives   rise   to   maritime   claim, but not a maritime lien. It is expressly   stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint that supply   of bunkers to a vessel constitutes necessaries   Page 101 of 125 HC-NIC Page 101 of 125 Created On Wed Jun 29 00:15:11 IST 2016 O/OJCA/234/2016 ORDER within   the   meaning   of  Section   V.   of   the   Act,  and the respondent has a maritime claim against   the   appellant   No.   1­vessel   for   the   bunkers.   Section   XXXV   of   the   Act   provides   that   jurisdiction   conferred   by   the   Act   on   High  Courts of admiralty may be exercised either by  proceedings   in   rem   or   by   proceedings   in  personam.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 5 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Zukkur Ali vs State Of U.P. on 19 December, 2017

25. For the reasons stated above; Jail appeal being no.2845 of 2011 is partly allowed, the conviction of appellant under Section 3(2) v of S.C. & S.T. Act is set aside. The conviction of appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. is maintained and he is sentenced to undergo ten years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default, to further undergo R.I. for six months. Impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhika T vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 18 December, 2025

5.4.6 In applying and implementing provision of Section 31(10) versus Section 31(11) of the University Act based on above principle of interpretation, the any of the provisions of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 will have to be taken note of by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the University Act, which mandates application of these rules mutatis mutandis while making appointments for all posts under the University Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Rahul Gajanan Teni vs Competition Commission Of India on 23 September, 2025

In shamsher Kataria (supra) the Competition Commission examined the conduct of Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 -85- automobile manufacturers and their wholly controlled network of dealers, where the issue involved vertical restraints imposed by manufacturers upon their authorized dealers. The principle applied in that case was based on the concept of a "single economic entity," wherein the subsidiaries and their controlled dealers were considered part of the same group under direct management and ownership. However, in the present case, M/s Toyfort and M/s Fimo Infosolutions are independent business entities with separate legal personality, separate commercial interests, and no common controlling ownership. The mere fact of being categorized as "related parties" for certain transactions does not merge their economic identity into one. In fact, it negates the basic foundation of bidding which entails all participants to bid independently of each other. Independence and secrecy are the key elements of any tendering. The participation in a tender by related parties directly contravenes the fundamental principles and objectives of tendering as there is neither independence nor secrecy in such bids. Rather, it confirms the collusion in bids and bid rigging. The ratio of the case does not apply to the present case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Fimo Infosolutions Private Limited vs Competition Commission Of India on 23 September, 2025

In shamsher Kataria (supra) the Competition Commission examined the conduct of Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 -85- automobile manufacturers and their wholly controlled network of dealers, where the issue involved vertical restraints imposed by manufacturers upon their authorized dealers. The principle applied in that case was based on the concept of a "single economic entity," wherein the subsidiaries and their controlled dealers were considered part of the same group under direct management and ownership. However, in the present case, M/s Toyfort and M/s Fimo Infosolutions are independent business entities with separate legal personality, separate commercial interests, and no common controlling ownership. The mere fact of being categorized as "related parties" for certain transactions does not merge their economic identity into one. In fact, it negates the basic foundation of bidding which entails all participants to bid independently of each other. Independence and secrecy are the key elements of any tendering. The participation in a tender by related parties directly contravenes the fundamental principles and objectives of tendering as there is neither independence nor secrecy in such bids. Rather, it confirms the collusion in bids and bid rigging. The ratio of the case does not apply to the present case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Gajanan Teni vs Competition Commission Of India on 23 September, 2025

In shamsher Kataria (supra) the Competition Commission examined the conduct of Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 -85- automobile manufacturers and their wholly controlled network of dealers, where the issue involved vertical restraints imposed by manufacturers upon their authorized dealers. The principle applied in that case was based on the concept of a "single economic entity," wherein the subsidiaries and their controlled dealers were considered part of the same group under direct management and ownership. However, in the present case, M/s Toyfort and M/s Fimo Infosolutions are independent business entities with separate legal personality, separate commercial interests, and no common controlling ownership. The mere fact of being categorized as "related parties" for certain transactions does not merge their economic identity into one. In fact, it negates the basic foundation of bidding which entails all participants to bid independently of each other. Independence and secrecy are the key elements of any tendering. The participation in a tender by related parties directly contravenes the fundamental principles and objectives of tendering as there is neither independence nor secrecy in such bids. Rather, it confirms the collusion in bids and bid rigging. The ratio of the case does not apply to the present case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next