Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The Commission perused the material and public domain information. The Informant alleged unfair and discriminatory interest rate hikes, frequent increases, and pre-payment penalties by OP-1, creating barriers for new entrants as consumers would be disinclined to switch due to potential losses. Conduct allegedly violated Sections 3(1), 3(2), and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The relevant market was delineated as 'provision of loan against property in India'. OP-1's dominance was not established due to the competitive presence of numerous banks, NBFCs, and housing finance companies. Allegations of aftermarket abuse were rejected as misplaced. No prima facie case was made out u/ss 3 and 4. The matter was closed u/s 26(2) as no competition concerns arose.
The Commission perused the material and public domain information. The Informant alleged unfair and discriminatory interest rate hikes, frequent increases, and pre-payment penalties by OP-1, creating barriers for new entrants as consumers would be disinclined to switch due to potential losses. Conduct allegedly violated Sections 3(1), 3(2), and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The relevant market was delineated as 'provision of loan against property in India'. OP-1's dominance was not established due to the competitive presence of numerous banks, NBFCs, and housing finance companies. Allegations of aftermarket abuse were rejected as misplaced. No prima facie case was made out u/ss 3 and 4. The matter was closed u/s 26(2) as no competition concerns arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
