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...
SC held that the notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied statutory requirements and afforded a fair opportunity to answer alleged contraventions; no statutory mandate existed for a second show-cause notice proposing penalty. Pursuant to the deeming provision in Section 48, the enterprise's key officers were liable as persons "in charge of and responsible" and could be subject to corollary directions incidental to behavioural remedies imposed primarily on the enterprise. The Commission must apply the doctrine of proportionality when imposing remedies under Section 27. The Commission's findings dated 08.09.2015 are restored in entirety and the appeal is allowed.
SC held that the notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied statutory requirements and afforded a fair opportunity to answer alleged contraventions; no statutory mandate existed for a second show-cause notice proposing penalty. Pursuant to the deeming provision in Section 48, the enterprise's key officers were liable as persons "in charge of and responsible" and could be subject to corollary directions incidental to behavioural remedies imposed primarily on the enterprise. The Commission must apply the doctrine of proportionality when imposing remedies under Section 27. The Commission's findings dated 08.09.2015 are restored in entirety and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
