Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Competition Commission Of India vs M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. on 12 September, 2019

M/S. Vardayani Offset Through Its Sole ... vs Competition Commission Of India on 18 August, 2020

15.3 The powers of the Director General came in for consideration before the Delhi High Court in the case of Competition Commission Of India versus M/S Grasim Industries decided on 12/09/2019. The Division Bench was considering a challenge to quashing of the Report of the Director General in as much as the Report carried investigations also with regard to abuse of dominant position when in fact the Investigation as directed by the CCI was to investigate violations of Section 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and not Section 4. On submission of the report the Company challenged the report as being beyond the directions of the CCI which was rejected by the CCI, which compelled the Company to approach the High Court. The Learned Single Judge held as Page 81 of 89 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 19 01:43:46 IST 2020 C/SCA/8101/2020 CAV JUDGMENT under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

M/S.Theco India Pvt. Ltd vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2021

In the case of Competition Commission of India (supra), the report of the CCI was to the effect that Grasim had abused its dominant position. The 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.15527 of 2020 challenge before the Supreme Court was on the ground that the CCI was entitled to treat the report of the Director General as ‘information’ under Section 19 of that Act and proceed accordingly, if it were of the view that there existed a prima facie case of contravention by Grasim. After referring to the judgments in the case of Excel Crop Care and Cadila Health Care, the Court upheld the exercise of powers by the CCI.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

M/S.Theco India Pvt. Ltd vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2021

In the case of Competition Commission of India (supra), the report of the CCI was to the effect that Grasim had abused its dominant position. The challenge before the Supreme Court was on the ground that the CCI was entitled to treat the report of the Director General as ‘information’ under Section 19 of that Act and proceed accordingly, if it were of the view that there existed a prima facie case of contravention by Grasim. After referring to the judgments in the case of Excel Crop Care and Cadila Health Care, the Court upheld the exercise of powers by the CCI.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

M/S. Shree Shivam Corporation Through ... vs Competition Commission Of India on 9 September, 2022

8.11 Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG has also submitted that Investigation is quasi-inquisitorial and does not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. He has submitted that the Petitioners in the instant Writ Petition have sought a relief to quash and set aside the Investigation proceedings commenced pursuant to the Order dated 13.01.2020 under Section 26(1) of the Act in Case No. 24 of 2019 and has further impugned the notices sent by the Director General- CCI in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act for the purpose of carrying out investigation. He has relied upon the Para 27.3, 32.4 and 41 of the case of Competition Commission of India vs Grasim Industries (Supra), which reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Mrf Ltd vs Competition Commission Of India on 30 April, 2024

i) Excel Crop Care Ltd. V. Competition Commission of India1, ii)Cadila Health Care Ltd. and others V. CCI and others2 and iii) Competition Commission of India V. Grasim Industries3. The judgements are prior to the amendment in 2023 inserting a specific definition for the word ‘party’. That apart, the impact that such upgradation has on a party must also be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

Mrf Ltd vs Competition Commission Of India on 30 April, 2024

i) Excel Crop Care Ltd. V. Competition Commission of India 1, ii)Cadila Health Care Ltd. and others V. CCI and others 2 and iii) Competition Commission of India V. Grasim Industries 3. The judgements are prior to the amendment in 2023 inserting a specific definition for the word ‘party’. That apart, the impact that such upgradation has on a party must also be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document
1   2 Next