Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.18 seconds)
Documents citing Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson ... vs Competition Commission Of India And ... on 30 March, 2016

Jcb India Limited And Anr vs The Competition Commission Of India And ... on 14 August, 2024

In the present dispute also the substratum of the dispute being the design infringement action filed by JCB for protection of its registered designs, the said suit having itself being settled, in the opinion of this Court, the CCI proceeding cannot continue and deserves to be disposed of. This is in line with the decision of the Division Bench in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. [2023:DHC:4783-DB] where the Court categorically holds that once the settlement is reached, the substratum of the proceedings itself no longer exists. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below:
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Jcb India Limited & Anr vs The Competition Commsiion Of India & Anr on 14 August, 2024

In the present dispute also the substratum of the dispute being the design infringement action filed by JCB for protection of its registered designs, the said suit having itself being settled, in the opinion of this Court, the CCI proceeding cannot continue and deserves to be disposed of. This is in line with the decision of the Division Bench in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. [2023:DHC:4783-DB] where the Court categorically holds that once the settlement is reached, the substratum of the proceedings itself no longer exists. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below:
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Pravardhan Seeds Private Limited vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. ... on 23 July, 2020

Judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Telefonaktiebola get LM Ericsson (supra) is also distinguishable on the ground that in this case the respondent had applied for recovery of monetary claim and such dispute did not involve enforcement of right or obligation under the Patents Act. Delhi High Court in the said judgment has clearly held that the Competition Act does not oust the jurisdiction of other forum/body on other matters relegated to other forum/body even if the issues are related. The view taken by the Delhi High Court about the jurisdiction of CCI and the jurisdiction of other forum/body to deal with the issue of enforcement of a right or other obligation under the Patents Act would support the case of the respondent and not the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 144 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. ... on 23 July, 2020

Judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Telefonaktiebola get LM Ericsson (supra) is also distinguishable on the ground that in this case the respondent had applied for recovery of monetary claim and such dispute did not involve enforcement of right or obligation under the Patents Act. Delhi High Court in the said judgment has clearly held that the Competition Act does not oust the jurisdiction of other forum/body on other matters relegated to other forum/body even if the issues are related. The view taken by the Delhi High Court about the jurisdiction of CCI and the jurisdiction of other forum/body to deal with the issue of enforcement of a right or other obligation under the Patents Act would support the case of the respondent and not the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 144 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. ... on 23 July, 2020

Judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Telefonaktiebola get LM Ericsson (supra) is also distinguishable on the ground that in this case the respondent had applied for recovery of monetary claim and such dispute did not involve enforcement of right or obligation under the Patents Act. Delhi High Court in the said judgment has clearly held that the Competition Act does not oust the jurisdiction of other forum/body on other matters relegated to other forum/body even if the issues are related. The view taken by the Delhi High Court about the jurisdiction of CCI and the jurisdiction of other forum/body to deal with the issue of enforcement of a right or other obligation under the Patents Act would support the case of the respondent and not the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 144 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Biocon Limited & Others vs F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Others on 21 April, 2017

40. Similar objections relating to Commission's jurisdiction were raised by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr. (hereinafter 'Ericsson case'), wherein it was argued that the Commission would have no jurisdiction to determine those issues which are pending before civil courts. Vide order dated 30th March, 2016, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the said argument. The observations and findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, though made in the context of the alleged overlaps between the Patents Act, 1970 and the Competition Act, 2002, would be of relevance while dealing with the Roche's objections to the Commission's jurisdiction in the present case. The relevant excerpt from the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court is reproduced in verbatim below:
Competition Commission of India Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cellur Operator Association Of India vs Competition Commission Of India And Ors on 21 September, 2017

97 The substantial client/consumer base is in State of Maharashtra. The Respondents/service providers Officers' are at Mumbai. The affidavits and averments and the documents so placed on record, show that the various correspondences/the documents have been exchanged by and between the parties, within the jurisdiction of Maharashtra State including Mumbai. Both the parties have substantially argued the matter by referring to the affidavit and the documents/charts, which are necessary to adjudicate the issues so raised. The Senior Counsel appearing for the CCI has not agitated issue about maintainability or entertainability of the Writ Petitions in this Court. We are inclined to hold that the present Writ Petitions, are maintainable and entertainable in this High Court. 98 We are inclined to accept the submissions/contentions so raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the service providers/petitioners. The defence/supporting submissions revolving around the majority decision by the senior counsel appearing for the Respondents (RJIL and CCI) are not acceptable. [Kranti Associates Pvt 118/160 ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2017 00:45:14 ::: ssm 119 Judgment-Voda-wp8594.17gp.sxw 32 Ltd v. Masood Ahmed Khan & ors and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson 33 (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India & Anr ]. Objections to entertainability of Writ Petitions in light of Section 26(1) of Competition Act-
Bombay High Court Cites 105 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor, ... on 12 July, 2018

In Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) (supra) it was further held that the question whether there is any abuse of dominance is solely within the scope of the Competition Act and a civil court cannot decide whether an enterprise has abused its dominant position and pass orders as contemplated under Section 27 of the Competition Act. It was held that merely because a set of facts pleaded in a suit may also be relevant for determination whether Section 4 of the Competition Act has been violated, does not mean that a civil court would be adjudicating that issue. An abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act is not a cause that can be made a subject matter of a suit or proceedings before a civil court.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - M Gupta - Full Document

Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In ... vs Bharti Airtel on 25 October, 2022

48. As regards the objection to jurisdiction, the Informant has relied upon the Delhi High Court's order in W.P.(C) 464/2014 titled as 'Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson Vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr.', whereby the Hon'ble High Court categorically stated that 'there is no irreconcilable repugnancy or conflict between the Competition Act and the Patents Act. And, in absence of any irreconcilable conflict between the two legislations, the jurisdiction of CCI to entertain complaints for abuse of dominance in respect of patent rights Case No. 05 of 2022 18 cannot be ousted.'
Competition Commission of India Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr vs Zydus Lifesciences Limited on 23 July, 2025

CS(COMM) 159/2024 Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Page 27 of 40 Signing Date:23.07.2025 20:27:44 It is a settled position of law that provisions of a special statute would always prevail over the provisions of general law. Therefore, Section 104A of the Act would prevail over the discovery provisions under the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This issue was extensively discussed in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India6, where a division bench of this Court examined whether the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 would prevail over the provisions of the Patents Act. The division bench held that a general law such as the Competition Act, 2002 cannot override a special law like the Patents Act. In this regard, the relevant extract from the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below:
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Bansal - Full Document
1   2 Next