Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Upholds CCI's Decision: TV Show Not Dominant, No Competition Act Violation Found.</h1> <h3>Anuj Kumar Bhati Versus Sony Entertainment TV. (Set)</h3> The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, upholding the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) decision that the television show in question was not ... Writ petition - petition claimed payment of the monies spent by him in television show 'Kaun Banega Crorepati-2 (KBC)' - petitioner had spent large sums of monies in his attempt to participate in the said show but had not been able to - organizers of the show were duping the participants of crores of rupees and indulging in foul play – Held that:- CCI (Competition Commission of India) dismissed complaint holding that allegations of petitioner were to be tested in light of opposite party being in a dominant position and, thus, discriminating in selection of contestants for participation in programme/show and adopting unfair means therein; however, on basis of viewership ratings, it was found that share of viewers of said television show was not so much for which it could be said that show was in a dominating position - therefore, petition against impugned order was to be dismissed Issues:1. Impugning orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Comp. AT)2. Dismissal of complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act by the Competition Commission of India (CCI)3. Appeal against the CCI's order to the Comp. AT4. Dismissal of proceedings by the Comp. AT as infructuous5. Dismissal of appeal by the Comp. AT affirming CCI's conclusionsAnalysis:1. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Comp. AT) dated 25.07.2011 & 18.08.2011. The genesis of the litigation stemmed from a writ petition concerning the television show 'Kaun Banega Crorepati-2 (KBC).' The petitioner alleged foul play by the show's organizers in contestant selection. The writ petition was converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and eventually disposed of by a Division Bench of the court, directing the petitioner to approach the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC).2. The petitioner's complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was dismissed on 29.03.2011. The CCI found no violation of the Competition Act as the television show was not in a dominant position based on viewership ratings. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Comp. AT, arguing that the CCI's findings contradicted the Division Bench's observations and that dismissal without investigation was improper.3. The Comp. AT dismissed the proceedings as infructuous due to the petitioner's Section 19 complaint and subsequent appeal. The Comp. AT, in its order dated 18.08.2011, upheld the CCI's decision, stating that the show was not in a dominant position, and the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. The petitioner contended that the CCI should not have reached a conclusion without investigation, but the court found no evidence challenging the viewership ratings or the CCI's findings.4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the CCI's conclusions were contrary to the Division Bench's observations. However, the court noted that the Division Bench's order did not mandate investigation by the CCI and that the CCI's decision was based on valid grounds. The court also highlighted that no inconsistencies were found in the CCI's order and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to deposit costs with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social Security & Welfare Fund.5. In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions against the CCI and the Comp. AT's decisions. The court upheld the CCI's findings regarding the television show's dominance status and dismissed the petitioner's appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found