Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (2.81 seconds)
Documents citing Coal India Ltd vs Competition Commission Of India on 15 June, 2023

Suresh Kumari vs Registrar Of Companies & Ors. on 20 February, 2025

As a result, the Court of Appeal held in R. v. Secy. of State for the Environment, ex p Ostler [R. v. Secy. of State for the Environment, ex p Ostler, 1977 QB 122 : (1976) 3 WLR 288 (CA)] that the availability of a statutory right to challenge within a specified time- limit, among other points, provided a sufficient basis for distinguishing Anisminic [Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969) 2 AC 147 : (1969) 2 WLR 163 (HL)] .
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Hiralal Narsinhbhai Hadkia vs Yasmin Wd/O Faramroz Horamsaji ... on 14 August, 2025

We are aware of the difficulty in formulating an exhaustive rule to tell when there is lack of power and when there is an erroneous exercise of it. The difficulty has arisen because the word 'jurisdiction' is an expression which is used in a variety of senses and takes its colour from its context, (see per Diplock, J. at p. 394 in the Anisminic case [Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1967] 3 WLR 382 : [1967] 2 All ER 986]). Whereas the 'pure' theory of jurisdiction would reduce jurisdictional control to a vanishing point, the adoption of a narrower meaning might result in a more useful legal concept even though the formal structure of law may lose something of its logical symmetry. 'At bottom the problem of defining the concept of jurisdiction for purpose of judicial review has been one of public policy rather than one of logic'. [S.A. Smith, 'Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 2nd Edn., p. 98. (1968 Edn.)]"
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick vs Ranajit Ghoshal on 17 January, 2025

We are aware of the difficulty in formulating an exhaustive rule to tell when there is lack of power and when there is an erroneous exercise of it. The difficulty has arisen because the word ‘jurisdiction’ is an expression which is used in a variety of senses and takes its colour from its context, (see per Diplock, J. at p. 394 in the Anisminic case [Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1967) 3 WLR 382 : (1967) 2 All ER 986] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meta Platforms Inc vs Competition Commission Of India & Ors on 4 November, 2025

150. Appellant claims that the Commission's conclusion that WhatsApp is dominant is without merit because that determination was made in an incorrectly defined relevant market (para 117). The Impugned Order incorrectly concludes Meta (operating through WhatsApp) is dominant in the market for 42 Coal India v. Competition Commission of India, (2023) 10 SCC 345 Supreme Court's decision requires the Commission to cumulatively consider all the factors Competition Appeal No. 1 & 2 of 2025 94 of 184 OTT messaging apps through smartphones in India [para 108, Impugned Order, Annexure 1]. Appellant claims that Dominance must be analyzed in the context of a correctly defined relevant market. The Impugned Order's dominance analysis fails at the threshold for this reason. Even without prejudice to WhatsApp's submissions on the relevant market, the dominance analysis is flawed, as set out below.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Whatsapp Llc vs Competition Commission Of India on 4 November, 2025

150. Appellant claims that the Commission's conclusion that WhatsApp is dominant is without merit because that determination was made in an incorrectly defined relevant market (para 117). The Impugned Order incorrectly concludes Meta (operating through WhatsApp) is dominant in the market for 42 Coal India v. Competition Commission of India, (2023) 10 SCC 345 Supreme Court's decision requires the Commission to cumulatively consider all the factors Competition Appeal No. 1 & 2 of 2025 94 of 184 OTT messaging apps through smartphones in India [para 108, Impugned Order, Annexure 1]. Appellant claims that Dominance must be analyzed in the context of a correctly defined relevant market. The Impugned Order's dominance analysis fails at the threshold for this reason. Even without prejudice to WhatsApp's submissions on the relevant market, the dominance analysis is flawed, as set out below.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

M/S Indcon Projects And Equipment Ltd. vs Mr. Rahul Rauthan And Anr. on 5 January, 2024

In Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147, the House of Lords has given a very broad connotation to the concept of „jurisdictional error‟. It has been laid down 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 something which would deprive it of its jurisdiction and render its decision a nullity. In the words of Lord Reid:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Ms Suraksha Jagirdar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 23 January, 2024

In Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147, the House of Lords has given a very broad connotation to the concept of „jurisdictional error‟. It has been laid down 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 something which would deprive it of its jurisdiction and render its decision a nullity. In the words of Lord Reid: "But there are many cases where, although the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter on the enquiry, it has done or failed to do something in the course of the enquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity. It may have given its decision in bad faith. It may have made a decision which it had no power to make. It may have failed in the course of the enquiry to comply with the requirements of natural justice. It Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13089/2023 Page 19 of 45 By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:25.01.2024 17:10:33 may in perfect good faith have misconstrued the provisions giving it power to act so that it failed to deal with the question remitted to it and decided some question which was not remitted to it. It may have refused to take into account something which it was required to take into account. Or it may have based its decision on some matter which, under the provisions setting it up, it had no right to take into account. I do not intend this list to be exhaustive."
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sunil Kumar Sharma on 22 January, 2024

In the said case, there is an exposition on the well recognised exceptions to the self-imposed restraint of the High Courts, namely, in cases where a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, or there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory/quasi-judicial authority against whose order judicial review is sought. It was observed that an "error of jurisdiction" was always distinguished from "in excess of jurisdiction", till the judgment of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commission [(1969) 2 WLR 163] (Anisminic). In Anisminic, the real question was not, whether, an authority made a wrong decision but whether they enquired into and decided a matter on which they had no right to consider.
Karnataka High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sunil Kumar Sharma on 22 January, 2024

In the said case, there is an exposition on the well recognised exceptions to the self-imposed restraint of the High Courts, namely, in cases where a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, or there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory/quasi-judicial authority against whose order judicial review is sought. It was observed that an "error of jurisdiction" was always distinguished from "in excess of jurisdiction", till the judgment of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commission [(1969) 2 WLR 163] (Anisminic). In Anisminic, the real question was not, whether, an authority made a wrong decision but whether they enquired into and decided a matter on which they had no right to consider.
Karnataka High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sunil Kumar Sharma on 22 January, 2024

In the said case, there is an exposition on the well recognised exceptions to the self-imposed restraint of the High Courts, namely, in cases where a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, or there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory/quasi-judicial authority against whose order judicial review is sought. It was observed that an "error of jurisdiction" was always distinguished from "in excess of jurisdiction", till the judgment of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commission [(1969) 2 WLR 163] (Anisminic). In Anisminic, the real question was not, whether, an authority made a wrong decision but whether they enquired into and decided a matter on which they had no right to consider.
Karnataka High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next