Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Grasim Industries Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India on 17 December, 2013

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Firoze M Mogal & on 26 December, 2013

In Anisminic Limited v. Foreign Compensation Commission, reported in (1969)2 AC 147, the House of Lords has given a very broad connotation to the concept of 'jurisdictional error'. It has been laid down in Anisminic that a tribunal exceeds jurisdiction not only at the threshold when it enters into an inquiry which it is not entitled to undertake, but it may enter into an enquiry within its jurisdiction in the first instance and then do some thing which would deprive it of its jurisdiction and render its decision a nullity. In the words of Lord Reid:
Gujarat High Court Cites 120 - Cited by 439 - Full Document

Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora vs M/S Tulip Infratech Ltd. & Ors on 3 February, 2015

276. On procedural side, objections were raised relating to the manner in which the investigation was conducted. It was contended that the investigation was C. No. 59 of 2011 91 premised on the existence of CREDAI as the forum for collusive activities. Once the DG holds CREDAI not in contravention, the entire basis of the investigation falls. The manner of picking a representative sample by the DG was also challenged. It was pointed out that the answering party has not signed the Code of Conduct of CREDAI. It was argued that the DG failed to provide an opportunity to the answering party to defend itself. Placing reliance upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Grasim case (supra) it was argued that the answering party had the right to defend itself first, before the DG and thereafter before the Commission.
Competition Commission of India Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1