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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 :
        Law of Competition

        2018 (8) TMI 180 - AT - Law of Competition

        📋
        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

        Cement Companies' Price-Fixing Scheme Confirmed; Appeals Dismissed for Anti-Competitive Practices. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the findings of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), dismissing the appeals filed by the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Cement Companies' Price-Fixing Scheme Confirmed; Appeals Dismissed for Anti-Competitive Practices.

                          The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the findings of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), dismissing the appeals filed by the Cement Manufacturers Association and 11 cement companies. The Tribunal confirmed that there was sufficient evidence to establish an anti-competitive agreement among the companies to fix prices and control production and supply, violating Section 3(3)(a) and (b) of the Competition Act, 2002. The NCLAT concluded that the CCI had adequately considered the relevant market and imposed appropriate penalties, thereby affirming the CCI's cease and desist orders against the parties involved.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Allegation of anti-competitive agreement and cartelization by Cement Manufacturers.
                          2. Examination of evidence and data to establish the existence of an agreement.
                          3. Analysis of price parallelism and production trends.
                          4. Role and activities of Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA).
                          5. Determination of relevant market.
                          6. Imposition of penalties and cease and desist orders.

                          Analysis:

                          Allegation of Anti-Competitive Agreement and Cartelization:
                          The Builders Association of India filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging anti-competitive agreement against the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) and 11 Cement Manufacturing Companies. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) initially found the parties in contravention of Section 3(3)(a) & (b) of the Act, imposed penalties, and directed them to cease and desist from such activities.

                          Examination of Evidence and Data:
                          The appellants argued that the CCI failed to establish an "agreement" to cartelize among the cement companies as required under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. They contended that there was no direct or indirect evidence of an agreement to cartelize and that the CCI did not produce sufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that parties acted under normal market conditions.

                          Analysis of Price Parallelism and Production Trends:
                          The appellants contended that the CCI's analysis of price parallelism was flawed due to inconsistent data and failure to account for market transparency, seasonality, and other factors. They argued that price parallelism alone cannot determine a cartel and that the CCI did not carry out any analysis to dispel the existence of any alternate plausible explanation but for cartelization.

                          Role and Activities of CMA:
                          The CMA was accused of providing a platform for the cement companies to share sensitive information and coordinate their activities. The appellants argued that CMA's collection of data was at the behest of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and that such collection was not anti-competitive unless shared with or disseminated to the cement companies.

                          Determination of Relevant Market:
                          The appellants argued that the CCI failed to define the relevant market, which is necessary to determine the anti-competitive effects of the alleged conduct. The CCI, however, considered the relevant geographic and product markets while analyzing the competitive constraints faced by the undertakings involved.

                          Imposition of Penalties and Cease and Desist Orders:
                          The CCI imposed penalties and directed the parties to cease and desist from indulging in any activity relating to agreement, understanding, or arrangement on prices, production, and supply of cement. The penalties were challenged on the ground that only certain deficiencies were detected for specific periods.

                          Conclusion:
                          The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the CCI's findings and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish an agreement among the cement companies to fix prices and control production and supply, in violation of Section 3(3)(a) and (b) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Tribunal also found that the CCI had considered the relevant market and imposed minimum penalties, which were appropriate given the circumstances.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found