Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Competition Commission Of India & Ors on 18 December, 2019 cites

Krishnan Kakkanth vs Government Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 February, 1996

32. According to the learned counsel the impugned order violates principles of natural justice inasmuch as, neither HPCL was heard or issued notice to, by the Competition Commission, nor was it made a party to these proceedings, though the 'HPCL Pipeline' and 'SALPG', LPG import facility are owned and operated by 'HPCL' & 'SALPG', respectively. The issue at hand includes and affects the 'HPCL' pipeline which is owned and operated by this Appellant. It was submitted that merely seeking information and asking to fill out questionnaires from the Appellant during investigation cannot be termed as a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, it is Competition Appeal (AT) No. 69 of 2018 21 submitted that the Commission has failed to implead 'HPCL', as a necessary party in the instant matter, despite being aware of issues relating to safety of 'HPCL pipeline' owned and operated by the Appellant. It is settled law that the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) is not absolute and no person has a fundamental right to insist upon the Government or any other individual for doing business with him. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala & Ors.' - 1997 (9) SCC 495.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 43 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Scm Solifert Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India on 17 April, 2018

12. So far as the imposition of penalty is concerned on 'SALPG', after thoughtful consideration the stand taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Excel Crop care Limited vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr.' the Commission imposed penalty of Rs.19,20,70,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores Twenty Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) upon 'SALPG' (one of the Appellant herein) for infringing the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 59 - A Mishra - Full Document
1