Contributor Page
Vaish Associates Advocates
 
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +91 11 42492532
Fax: +91 11 23320484
Mohan Dev Building
1st & 11th Floors
13 Tolstoy Marg
New Delhi
110001
India
By Anand Sree
2019 will mark a decade since the notification of the anti-trust provisions (anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act') on 20 May 2009.
OP-4 was exonerated as when there was a substantial decline in the fuel costs, the fuel surcharge was withdrawn.
The inquiry was initiated by the CCI pursuant to leniency application filed by Panasonic under the Leniency Regulations.
Therefore, the Court held that investigation done by DG without CCI's recording prima facie opinion against Cadila is acceptable.
Penalties were also imposed on the individual office bearers of the chemists and druggists associations and managing directors and concerned employees of the three pharma companies.
The CCI's decision is the fourth order to be passed under the Leniency provisions.
The CCI, till date, has been notified of five (5) transactions involving the acquisition of a corporate debtor under the IBC and has granted approval in two of them so far.
The Supreme Court of India vide its landmark judgment dated 1.10.2018 has allowed the appeals by the 44 LPG Cylinder manufacturers and dismissed the finding of bid rigging in supply of 14.2 kg domestic LPG cylinders ...
The Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court comprising of the Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao in a recent judgement dated 18th December 2018 has reiterated its earlier decision in the Cadila case ...
Instances of private hospitals overcharging admitted patients are not uncommon and are often reported in media.
Therefore, the Commission exonerated GAIL on the allegations of abuse of dominant position.
After the investigation DG found that the RDCA was levying and collecting PIS charges in Mumbai.
The amendment was proposed to bring down this to 5% with strong caveats.
This case stands out because of total contrast in market definition between the majority and minority view of the Commission.
Thus, the finding of the NCLAT on RPM is, perhaps, a case of Type 2 error, in my opinion.
Contributor's Topics
More...