Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Price parallelism alone cannot establish a cartel u/s 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. Evidence of parallel pricing must be supplemented with "plus factors" demonstrating conscious conduct rather than independent business decisions. In the present case, the limited evidence of exchange of calls between sugar mills and the industry association is insufficient to establish a contravention. No case of violation can be made out against any party, and the matters are directed to be closed forthwith. The order does not qualify for confidential treatment u/s 57 of the Act.
Price parallelism alone cannot establish a cartel u/s 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. Evidence of parallel pricing must be supplemented with "plus factors" demonstrating conscious conduct rather than independent business decisions. In the present case, the limited evidence of exchange of calls between sugar mills and the industry association is insufficient to establish a contravention. No case of violation can be made out against any party, and the matters are directed to be closed forthwith. The order does not qualify for confidential treatment u/s 57 of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
