Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)Section 3 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 105 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Classic Motors Ltd. vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 13 December, 1996
i. Case Law 1: Classic Motors Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited (1997) 40 DRJ 462: In this matter,
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
The Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
Section 2 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Federation Of Indian Airlines & Ors. vs Competition Commission Of India on 2 December, 2010
8014-8023/ 2014 preferred by the Commission, inter alia, on the ground that Section
4 of the Act would apply even to an agreement entered into prior to 20.05.2009 if the
effect of the said agreement is still continuing and subsisting. Further, the
Commission is of the view that the said judgment of Hon'ble COMPAT does not
imply a blanket ban upon the Commission to examine the conduct of a dominant
entity. Thus, the aforesaid judgement relied upon by the OP group is not relevant in
the context of the present matter keeping in view the reasons stated above. The instant
matter also involves allegations regarding conduct of the OP group post 20.05.2009.
These include (a) demanding trait value as per SLA despite State Governments
prescribing lesser rates; (b) denial of technology to the Informant by refusal to renew
the SLA on account of disputes which are pending litigation which appear to be an
essential input for producing Bt cotton seeds; (c) upon expiry of the SLA, asking the
Informant to restrain from selling, storing, producing etc. any seed containing the
technology of the OP group with immediate effect despite the SLA allowing the
Informant to deal with such seeds for a period of two years post-expiration of the
SLA; and (d) leverage of dominant position by OP group for entering and protecting
its position in the Bt cotton seeds market. Nothing has been submitted by the OP
group as to why the purported unfair conduct of the OP group post 20.05.2009 cannot
be subjected to Section 4 of the Act. Considering these aspects, the Commission is of
the view that it is well within its authority to examine such conduct of the OP group
which is post 20.05.2009 under Section 4 of the Act.
Competition Commission Of India vs M/S Dlf Ltd on 22 September, 2014
19. Further, regarding the judgment of Hon'ble COMPAT in DLF Case (supra), the
Commission notes that the ratio therein relates to non-applicability of Section 4 to
conditions imposed under an agreement entered into prior to the enforcement of the
said provision. Para 69 of the said judgment, inter alia, states as under:
1