Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
The HC dismissed the petition seeking setting aside of an order of Respondent No.1 (CCI) and a direction to re-examine information, holding that the impugned order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act lawfully recorded a prima facie opinion and directed the DG to investigate. The court held Section 26(2-A) (inserted 2023) aims solely at avoiding duplicate proceedings and does not impose a jurisdictional bar on CCI entertaining distinct or new complaints; CCI need only consider Section 26(2-A) when deciding to close a matter under Section 26(2) or 26(2-A). No entitlement to a hearing attaches at the prima facie stage; thus no infirmity was found and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition seeking setting aside of an order of Respondent No.1 (CCI) and a direction to re-examine information, holding that the impugned order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act lawfully recorded a prima facie opinion and directed the DG to investigate. The court held Section 26(2-A) (inserted 2023) aims solely at avoiding duplicate proceedings and does not impose a jurisdictional bar on CCI entertaining distinct or new complaints; CCI need only consider Section 26(2-A) when deciding to close a matter under Section 26(2) or 26(2-A). No entitlement to a hearing attaches at the prima facie stage; thus no infirmity was found and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
