Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, before issuing a direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, the Competition Commission was required to give notice, hear the affected party, and take evidence or conduct a detailed enquiry into the authenticity of the material placed before it.
Analysis: The direction under Section 26(1) is a preliminary and administrative step intended only to determine whether a prima facie case exists for investigation. The Commission is expected to satisfy itself on the record available, but the statutory scheme does not require prior notice or hearing to the affected party at that stage. The powers under Section 36(2) and the corresponding regulations are enabling powers for taking evidence and calling for information, but they do not convert the prima facie assessment into an adjudicatory proceeding. The absence of civil consequences at the threshold and the confidential, preparatory character of the step exclude the application of a full audi alteram partem hearing before a direction for investigation is issued.
Conclusion: The challenge to the order under Section 26(1) failed; the direction for investigation was valid and was not vitiated for want of prior notice, hearing, or evidentiary enquiry.